Monroe v Pape

Monroe v Pape

The case involved the Monroe family against a group of law enforcement officers. Thirteen officers, Frank Pape, included visited Monroe’s’ home in Chicago and in the morning (5:45 am) and ordered the couple to stand naked in their living room. The police officers then proceeded to ransack the house. Later, Mr. Monroe was taken to police quarters and detained for ten hours on the grounds of open charges. All the while, Mr. Monroe was being questioned about a murder. The police visited the apartment without any warrant to carry out the search and subsequent arrest. They also refused Monroe not to call his attorney (Nahmod,1034).

Mr. Monroe raised complain against the thirteen law enforcement officers individually. He also accused the city of Chicago. The city proceeded to dismiss the complaint citing that as this was inconsistent with the Civil rights Act. Further, they also asserted that the complaint was too inconsistent with the acts performed by government agencies. The thirteen defendants also dismissed the claims raised by the plaintiff on grounds there was no cause of action under CRA. Subsequently, the District Court dismissed the complaint by the plaintiff. The Chicago Court of Appeal consented to the determination of the case by the district court. Consequently, the complainant then proceeded to the Supreme Court to seek justice from the apex court of the Federal government (Nahmod,1025).

The legal issues of concern that were under investigation included but not limited to whether an individual could have a valid cause of action under the CRA against the law enforcement officers (police officers) in the event the officers violate the due process of a civilian. Besides, the other legal issue of concern was whether municipalities would be liable under the provisions of the CRA.

The Supreme Court ruled per the CRA, the City of Chicago was not liable for a legal suit for any violation of the procedural rights. However, the apex court ruled that the law enforcement officers had acted ultra vires by conducting an unwarranted search, seizure, and illegal detention, as well as deprivation of the accused his procedural rights. Consequently, the majority ruled that the action was in the color of law. Therefore the police officers who acted in a manner that contravened the provisions of the law, as was envisaged in the fourteenth Amendment, were liable for damages under the provisions of the CRA (Adelman 127). The Supreme Court thus reversed the ruling of the district court of Chicago and the Chicago Supreme Court as well.

In the ruling, Justice Frankfurter dissented the decision of the majority. He posited that when a law enforcement officer of the state acts contrary to the provided maxims, then such an officer should be subjected to the claims of the state on the individual with respect to the provisions of the state law. Therefore the state law should take precedence over the Civil Rights Act.

The Monroe v Pape case contributed immensely to civil lawsuits as it gave affirmation to the commitment of the federal government to protect the interests of the civilian. The Supreme Court established that the wisdom in framing the 14^th Amendment was to offer protection to individuals who were subjected to police brutality or mistreatment would get solace. Thus this ruling gave hope to the civilian that in case the action of law enforcement officers contravened the provisions of the Constitution, then the federal Constitution would take precedence to protect the rights of the members of the public (Adelman 121).

Works Cited

Adelman, Lynn. “The Supreme Court’s Quiet Assault on Civil Rights.” Dissent, vol. 64 no. 4, 2017, p. 119-128. Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/dss.2017.0101.

Nahmod, Sheldon. Section 1983 is born: the interlocking supreme court stories of Tenney and Monroe. Supreme Court Ruling on State. Vol 17(4), 1020-1061. 2013