A law enforcement officer who is directly responsible for violating an individual’s constitutional rights. However, for such liability to exist the plaintiff must establish that certain legal standards have been met or did not exist at the time of the action. Main Topic: Individual Liability under Section 1983 of the U.S. Code. In this discussion, we will consider the case of Kisela v. Hughes. In this discussion, you will be asked to discuss the legal equation that must be established by a plaintiff in order to prove a 1983 violation. Original Response
- Review the materials in the text that are pertinent in establishing a 1983 action against a law enforcement officer. Then, ensure that you have read and understand the case of Kisela v. Hughes, as well as the dissent.
- Begin your post by explaining the legal equation for bringing a Section 1983 action.
- Then, explain whether you agree with the majority
Week 3 Discussion: Individual Liability under Section 1983 of the United States Code.
Kisela v. Hughes
The issue petitioner Andrew Kisela, a Police officer in Tucson, Arizona shot the respondent Amy Hughes. Kisela had arrived at the scene and heard about the police radio reports that engaged in erratic behavior with a knife. Thus, Kisela was fired, and Hughes was actually holding the large kitchen knife, as he refused to drop the knife after at least the last command. Here, the issue is related to the point based on shooting, with Kisela’s actions which actually violated the established law.
Therefore, the rule in Kisela v. Hughes which was implemented was that under the qualified immunity relevant to the official to conduct non-violation rules. Thus, it is clearly established about the statutory notion or related with the Constitutional Rights which is reasonable for an individual which should be well known.
Thus, this mainly focuses upon the liabilities under a fair notice who conducts an unlawful, reasonableness which is often judged with the legal backdrop based on the case law while the time which is priory conducted. Thus, in the case of the United States Supreme Court makes a case law that does not require making a direct point with a rights that can clearly establish the existence of the precedent method which is placed under a statutory or made beyond the Constitutional question (Lexisnexis.com, 2018).
The liability undertaken under the 1983 section is imposed upon the police officers who are directly responsible for violating the individual’s Constitutional Rights. Based on the case Rizzo v. Goode, the plaintiff sued the mayor of Philadelphia with the city aging director, as it is supervised by the police officers who are persistent about police abuse.
On the other hand, in case of the Section 1983 based on the Civil Rights Act of 1871 which was adopted by Congress, it thrived out about the former African American slaves because of the “white supremacists”. For example, Monroe v. Pope opened an individual’s sue based on the officials that damages the federal or any state court.
This case was concluded with the primary note made under the probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious harm, either by an officer, which is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent an escape with deadly force. The equation related to 1983 fetches a civil remedy for all the individuals to get Civil Rights. Therefore, this case is relevant to the point which states about the decision made which relied upon the court appeals that supported denying the immunity of the qualified officers.
Reference
Lexisnexis.com (2018). Kisela v. Hughes 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018). Retrieved from https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-kisela-v-hughes (Retrieved on October 30th, 2022)
