Police officers generally have broad powers to carry out their duties. The Constitution and other laws, however, place limits on how far police can go in trying to enforce the law. As the videotaped beating of motorist Rodney King, in Los Angeles and several recent cases in New York have illustrated, police officers sometimes go too far, violating the rights of citizens. When this happens, the victim of the misconduct may have recourse through federal and state laws. A primary purpose of the nation's civil rights laws is to protect citizens from abuses by government, including police misconduct. Civil rights laws allow attorney fees and compensatory and punitive damages as incentives for injured parties to enforce their rights.

Overcoming Immunity

Being stopped and questioned by police in connection with a crime is an unsettling experience for most anyone. As long as the officer is performing his job properly, however, there is no violation of a suspect's rights. In fact, police are immune from suit for the performance of their jobs unless willful, unreasonable conduct is demonstrated. Mere negligence, the failure to exercise due care, is not enough to create liability. Immunity therefore means that in the typical police-suspect interaction, the suspect cannot sue the police. Civil rights remedies come into play for willful police conduct that violates an individual's constitutional rights.

Civil Rights Laws and Police Misconduct

A statute known as Section 1983 is the primary civil rights law victims of police misconduct rely upon. This law was originally passed as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which was intended to curb oppressive conduct by government and private individuals participating in vigilante groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan. It is now called Section 1983 because that is where the law has been published, within Title 42, of the United States Code. Section 1983 makes it unlawful for anyone acting under the authority of state law to deprive another person of his or her rights under the Constitution or federal law. The most common claims brought against police officers are false arrest (or false imprisonment), malicious prosecution, and use of excessive or unreasonable force.

False Arrest
The claim that is most often asserted against police is false arrest. Persons bringing this claim assert that police violated their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure. If the officer had probable cause to believe the individual had committed a crime, the arrest is reasonable and the Fourth Amendment has not been violated. Police can arrest without a warrant for a felony or misdemeanor committed in their presence. (Some states also allow warrantless arrests for misdemeanor domestic assaults not committed in the officer's presence.) Even if the information the officer relied upon later turns out to be false, the officer is not liable if he believed it was accurate at the time of the arrest. To prevail on a false arrest claim, the victim must show that the arresting officer lacked probable cause, that is, facts sufficient to cause a reasonable person to believe that a crime had been committed.

Malicious Prosecution
A malicious prosecution claim asserts that the officer wrongly deprived the victim of the Fourteenth Amendment right to liberty. To win this type of claim, the victim must show four things: 1) the defendant police officer commenced a criminal proceeding; 2) the proceeding ended in the victim's favor (that is, no conviction); 3) there was no probable cause; and 4) the proceeding was brought with malice toward the victim. As with false arrest, this claim will fail if the officer had probable cause to initiate criminal proceedings.

Excessive Force
Excessive force claims receive the most publicity, perhaps because the results of excessive force seem the most outrageous, involving serious physical injury or death. Whether the officer's use of force was reasonable depends on the surrounding facts and circumstances. The officer's intentions or motivations are not controlling. If the amount of force was reasonable, it doesn't matter that the officer's intentions were bad. But the reverse is also true: if the officer had good intentions, but used unreasonable force, the excessive force claim will not be dismissed.

Failure to Intervene
Officers have a duty to protect individuals from constitutional violations by fellow officers. Therefore, an officer who witnesses a fellow officer violating an individual's constitutional rights may be liable to the victim for failing to intervene.

The Qualified Immunity Defense

Defense attorneys representing a police officer for any of these claims will raise a defense of qualified immunity. This defense exists to prevent the fear of legal prosecution from inhibiting a police officer from enforcing the law. The defense will defeat a claim against the officer if the officer's conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. In other words, the specific acts the officer prevented the individual from engaging in must be legally protected, otherwise there is no civil rights violation. In order to win a civil rights claim, an individual bringing a police misconduct claim must prove that the actions of the police exceeded reasonable bounds, infringed the victim's constitutional rights, and produced some injury or damages to the victim.

Just put in another gear order with Strong.... I will post whenI receive it...

Hello,

In a custody battle, and because of a positive steroid test the judge took my son away from me in the pre-trial.

Here is the thing, I have valid prescriptions for the test that I take from Mexico. I even brought official letters from my doctors explaing my test theropy. I live in Texas some of the time and in Mexico the other time. I am a white us citizian, but have residence in Mexico as well. I have a home in MX, a bussiness in MX, all my Doctors are in MX and my driver's license says MX. The judge says I have to go to a specialist in the US and have testing done here. WTF!!!!! This bitch thinks she GOD.

I had an accident as a child and one of my testicles doesnt work, about four yeas ago I had to start taking test. Isnt this an invasion of my privacy and isn't my medical info protected and how can she demand me go to a US doc. My medical insurance is only for Mexico, I have no US insurance. They want $2500 to do the indocrin, testing!!!

Anyone help is MUCH appriciated!

o convict a criminal defendant, the prosecutor must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. As part of this process, the defendant is given an opportunity to present a defense. There are many types of defenses, from "I didn't do it" to "I did it, but I was too drunk to know what I was doing." Here are some of the most common defenses that criminal defendants can raise.
The Defendant Didn't Do It

Most often defendants try to avoid punishment by claiming they did not commit the act in question.
The Presumption of Innocence

All people accused of a crime are legally presumed to be innocent until they are convicted, either in a trial or as a result of pleading guilty. This presumption means not only that the prosecutor must convince the jury of the defendant's guilt, but also that the defendant need not say or do anything in his own defense. A defendant may simply remain silent, not present any witnesses, and argue that the prosecutor failed to prove his or her case. If the prosecutor can't convince the jury that the defendant is guilty, the defendant goes free.
Reasonable Doubt

The prosecutor must convince the judge or jury hearing the case that the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." This standard is very hard to meet. As a practical matter, the high burden of proof in criminal cases means that judges and jurors are supposed to resolve all doubts about the meaning of the evidence in favor of the defendant. With such a high standard imposed on the prosecutor, a defendant's most common defense is often to argue that there is in fact reasonable doubt.
The Alibi Defense

An alibi defense consists of evidence that a defendant was somewhere other than the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. For example, assume that Freddie is accused of committing a burglary on Elm Street at midnight on Friday, September 13. Freddie's alibi defense might consist of testimony that at the time of the burglary, Freddie was watching Casablanca at the Maple Street Cinema.
The Defendant Did It, But ...

Sometimes a defendant can avoid punishment even if the prosecutor shows that that the defendant did, without a doubt, commit the act in question.
Self-Defense

Self-defense is a defense commonly asserted by someone charged with a crime of violence, such as battery (striking someone), assault with a deadly weapon, or murder. The defendant admits that he or she did in fact commit the crime, but claims that it was justified by the other person's threatening actions. The core issues in most self-defense cases are:

* Who was the aggressor?
* Was the defendant's belief that self-defense was necessary a reasonable one?
* If so, was the force used by the defendant also reasonable?

Self-defense is rooted in the belief that people should be allowed to protect themselves from physical harm. This means that a person does not have to wait until he or she is actually struck to act in self-defense. If a reasonable person in the same circumstances would think that he or she is about to be physically attacked, that person has the right to strike first and prevent the attack. However, an act of self-defense cannot use more force than is reasonable -- someone who uses too much force may be guilty of a crime.
The Insanity Defense

The insanity defense is based on the principle that punishment is justified only if the defendant is capable of controlling his or her behavior and understanding that what he or she has done is wrong. Because some people suffering from a mental disorder are not capable of knowing or choosing right from wrong, the insanity defense prevents them from being criminally punished.

The insanity defense is an extremely complex topic; many scholarly works are devoted entirely to explaining its nuances. Here are some major points of interest:

* Despite popular perceptions to the contrary, defendants rarely enter pleas of "not guilty by reason of insanity." When they do, judges and jurors rarely uphold it.
* Various definitions of insanity are in use because neither the legal system nor psychiatrists can agree on a single meaning of insanity in the criminal law context. The most popular definition is the "McNaghten rule," which defines insanity as "the inability to distinguish right from wrong." Another common test is known as "irresistible impulse": a person may know that an act is wrong, but because of mental illness he or she cannot control his or her actions (this person is described as acting out of an "irresistible impulse").
* Defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity are not automatically set free. They are usually confined to a mental institution until their sanity is established. These defendants can spend more time in a mental institution than they would have spent in prison had they been convicted.
* An insanity defense normally rests on the testimony of a psychiatrist, who testifies after examining the defendant, his or her history, and the facts of the case. Courts appoint psychiatrists at government expense to assist poor defendants who cannot afford to hire their own psychiatrists.
* Once a defendant raises his or her sanity as a defense, he or she must submit to psychological tests conducted at the behest of the prosecution. This can be a very painful and humiliating experience, one that many defendants choose to forgo rather than rely on the insanity defense.

I got this yellow tag just today in my PO Box and it said that to show this to the clerk during regular business hours because they have my package. And on the slip it has a orange label that saids scan on it? What does that mean?:(

I was asked about U.S. customs. There was just so many different facets about U.S. customs that I am gonna put a link to a website that should answer most questions. The main point is that customs monitors and tracks anything coming in and going out of the country. Customs does NOT need a warrant to open a pack or search a vessel/plane/or cargo. As stated they monitor and track everything from planes/boats/cargo/mail/and on person. Each person has to declare what they are bringing in and the approx. cost. Now in our game, we usually have shipped in international goods. Each pack has a tracking number that is associated with it from the very beginning of the first mailing. It can be tracked via internet, but usually customs is a bit behind in their updates. If you can get a product without a script in a certain country but requires a script here, it is illegal without that script in the U.S. that is why a lot of us get a customs letter when a product is searched and seized. Here is the link.


HowStuffWorks "How the U.S. Customs Service Works"