NCJ Number
124669
Journal
Police Chief Volume: 58 Issue: 6 Dated: (June 1990) Pages: 30,32,35,36,38
Date Published
1990
Length
5 pages
Annotation
This article explores concepts of government liability in s.1983 cases, under which liability attaches to a municipality where an unconstitutional act was pursuant to a custom that has not been formally approved through the police department's decision-making channels, but that has assumed the force of laws. However, a municipality cannot be held responsible for simply employing an officer who has acted improperly.
Abstract
Definition of municipal liability under s.1983 focuses on three issues: whether the plaintiff suffered a constitutional deprivation, whether a policy or custom exists that is attributable to the municipality, and whether the defending officer acted in accordance with the policy or custom. The existence of a policy is generally easier for a plaintiff to prove when it involves action by high elected or appointed officials and the passage of an ordinance or written city policies. The existence of a policy within a police department can be established through manuals or through interviews about unwritten policies. However, the circuit courts are not uniform in determining whether a policy is attributable to the city. However, the existence of a municipal custom is more difficult as most police officers' conduct is predicated on the belief that they are acting in the officially sanctioned manner. In some cases, municipal liability is premised on a single incident of unconstitutional officer conduct, such as training inadequacy or official acquiescence in officer misconduct. Municipal liability can be avoided through reasonable, timely training, supervision, and discipline. 23 notes.