When are Supervisors Liable for the Actions of Subordinates in Federal Civil Rights and Police Liability Cases?

By Eric Marcy |   Nov. 20, 2015

Municipal Liability
When are Supervisors Liable for the Actions of Subordinates
in Federal Civil Rights and Police Liability Cases?

In Federal civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, supervisors are frequently named as defendants, even in circumstances were the supervisor was not directly involved or did not even have knowledge of the actions of the subordinate that gave rise to the claimed deprivation of civil rights. Shift Commanders, Lieutenants, Captains, Deputy Chiefs and Chiefs of Police are commonly named in “shotgun pleadings” when there has been a claim of excessive force or other alleged violation of Federal or Constitutional law. Supervisors should know when their conduct exposes them to liability for the actions of their subordinates and when it does not.

Read More

Topics : Litigation, Use of Force, Federal Civil Rights, Criminal Defense, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, police, Constitutional Rights, Criminal Law, Due Process, Eric Marcy, law enforcement, Police Misconduct, Civil Rights Litigation | 0 Comments Read More

Challenging So-Called "Objective" Psychological Tests: The Use And Abuse Of Psychological Testing In Trials, Sentencing, Parole Consideration, And Custody Disputes

By Eric Marcy |   Apr. 1, 2015

Criminal and civil courts and the New Jersey State Parole Board have accepted the use of psychological testing as an important component of making legal and factual determinations in both the civil and criminal litigation and for considerations as to whether a person is suitable for release on parole. Such testing may add an air of scientific authority resulting in an over reliance on conclusions drawn from the instrument. While psychological testing does add value, the courts recognize and it must be emphasized that the ultimate determinations involving psychological issues reside with the court and/or fact finder. The “objective test” result and related “expert” opinion may be considered, but are not binding on the court and/or fact finder. Given the stakes in establishing defenses in criminal law, sentencing, whether someone may be returned to society in parole determinations, and family law custody disputes, counsel must understand the benefits and limitations of psychological testing in the forensic context.

Read More

Topics : Litigation, Scientific Evidence, Mental Health, Criminal Law, discovery, Parole, Health Care | 0 Comments Read More

    All Blog Posts

    Subscribe to Email Updates

    Featured Blogger

    Eric Marcy

    Eric Marcy

    Click Here to Read My Latest Blog Post

    Categories

    see all