Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[14]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[30]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[14]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-12-03 13:31:11.744
	1	+2016-12-03 13:31:11.0

Caselist.CitesClass[30]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,11 @@
	1	+Qualified immunity is a key protection against uses of section 1983 claims to encroach on states rights and laws – immunity returns power to state courts
	2	+Putnam and Ferris 92 (Charles T. Putnam, Charles T. Ferris. Charles Putnam is co-director of Justiceworks, a research institute at the University of New Hampshire and he is a clinical professor of justice studies at the University of New Hampshire. He joined Justiceworks in December, 2001, after working for 15 years as a member of the New Hampshire Attorney General's Office. At Justiceworks Putnam works with social scientists and criminal justice professionals to define policy issues, evaluate current methods and to devise creative solutions to those issues. Putnam's research interests include the prosecution of crimes against children, the impact of technology on justice information systems, and the evolving issues of personal privacy versus public access to information held by government agencies. Putnam previously worked at the New Hampshire Attorney General's Office as chief of the Homicide Prosecutions Unit and the chief of the Criminal Justice Bureau. Before that he served as a homicide prosecutor, chief of the Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau, and an advisor to state boards and agencies. Putnam is a graduate of Yale University and the University of Connecticut School of Law. He served in the United States Peace Corps in Ecuador, South America from 1979 until 1982 and recently returned from Budapest, Hungary where he was faculty in residence for a group of UNH students. Charles Thomas Ferris, Esq. was raised in Kingfield, Maine and attended Mt. Abram High School in Salem, Maine. Tom graduated from Colby College in Waterville in 1988, and received his law degree from Franklin Pierce Law/U.N.H. in 1992. In 1992, Tom returned to Waterville, taking a job as an associate at a local firm. In 1997, Attorney Ferris started his own firm, which eventually grew to Ferris, Gurney, Grant and Crook, P.A. Attorney Ferris resides in Waterville with his wife and two children. He has served as a board member of the Central Maine Apartment Owners Association, the United Way of Mid-Maine, and is a past Master of Masonic Lodge #204 in Kingfield. Attorney Ferris also served as a Maine State Democratic Party Committee Member and remains active in many local and state organizations. Attorney Ferris specializes in Criminal Law, Civil Law, Bankruptcy, Family law, and Persona Injury Cases. “Defending A Maligned Defense: The Policy Bases Of The Qualified Immunity Defense In Actions Under 42 U.S.C. and 1983”. Bridgeport Articles. http://docplayer.net/2954431-Bridgeport-articles-volume-12-law-review-number-3-spring-quinnipiac-1992-college.html) //TruLe
	3	+To place this analysis in perspective, the authors first review the four policy considerations that we believe the qualified immunity defense furthers. We then briefly retrace the history of litigation under section 1983 and review the mechanics of the statute as it exists today. Next, we review the development of the qualified immunity defense and examine its current application in excessive force, arrest and detention, jail-cell suicide, and malicious prosecution claims against law enforcement officials. Finally, we examine how courts apply the defense to claims brought against correctional officials arising from strip searches, emergency situations, and medical treatment.¶ I. POLICY CONCERNS¶ Although the historical purposes of section 1983 clearly reflect the distrust of state courts and other state entities that was prevalent in 1871, the current view of some of the justices of the Supreme Court and increasing numbers of federal judges is that claims alleging misconduct by state and municipal officials do not belong in federal court. They believe such claims should in- stead be brought in state court in the first instance, if at all.3 This federalist view is based on the belief that state courts are as competent as federal courts to decide such claims and the belief that federal courts ought to minimize their involvement in and supervision of state and local government matters." Daniels v. Williams' is a case that demonstrates the heightened federalism concern where a section 1983 action appears only to be a state law tort claim masquerading as a constitutional claim. In Daniels, an inmate filed suit for alleged violations of his constitutional rights after he supposedly slipped on a pillow negligently left on a stairway by a corrections officer.6 In an opinion by Justice Rehnquist, the Supreme Court held that the due process clause is not implicated by negligent acts of state officials that cause unintended loss or injury, as these do not "deprive" a person of life, liberty, or property under the Fourteenth Amendment.7¶ This concern for federalism also is evidenced by the decision of the First Circuit in Amsden v. Moran.8 There, the plaintiff sought monetary damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief arising from the revocation of his surveyor's license by the New Hampshire Board of Licensure for Land Surveyors.9 The plaintiff argued that his federal constitutional rights had been violated because his license had been revoked without due process of law. The appellate court found that the plaintiff already had been granted ample opportunities to present his case in state fora and held that "in the qualified immunity/summary judgment milieu, federal courts have been well advised to steer clear of the potential quagmire inherent in disputes, like this one, which come down to matters of state-law jurisdictional and administrative requirements."' 0 The court went on to hold that, "at bottom, this appeal exemplifies that section 1983 is not a panacea for every remonstrant disappointed either by his treatment at the hands of a state agency or by the outcome of state administrative proceedings.'1¶ The federalism concern may also be heightened where a section 1983 action appears to be an effort to interfere with the operation of state government without the benefit of express statutory or constitutional mandate."2
	4	+
	5	+National power has consistently exacerbated racial injustice and local politics are key - national politicians are insulated from public opinion and ignore local problems, while local politicians want to act but cannot
	6	+Miller 10 (Lisa L. Miller. "The Invisible black victim: how American federalism perpetuates racial inequality in criminal justice." Law and Society Review 44.3‐4 (2010): 805-842) AkT 12/3/15
	7	+The promise of civil rights is the promise of inclusion; yet the vast disparity in incarceration rates between blacks, Latinos, and whites stands as an ugly re-minder of the nation's long history of race-based exclusionary practices. In this article, I argue that an important aspect of understanding race and the law in the twenty-first century is an appreciation of the American federal system that structures legal authority, political mobilization, and policy solutions and serves as an important and overlooked obstacle to more complete and sustained racial equality in crime and punishment in the United States. In con¬trast to the conventional wisdom about the role of the national government in protecting the rights of minorities and other disadvantaged groups, I suggest that crime and justice are arenas where the nationalization of issues has left the most important constituents behind. In fact, local crime politics provides a space where there is regular and ongoing articulation of the inclusionary goals of the civil rights agenda and sustained efforts to move forward in realizing that agenda through meaningful community involvement in promoting pub¬lic safety, economic development, and social justice. This article explores these themes and offers a discussion of the linkages between federalism, racial in-equality and crime, victimization and punishment.
	8	+
	9	+Continues:
	10	+Miller 10 (Lisa L. Miller. "The Invisible black victim: how American federalism perpetuates racial inequality in criminal justice." Law and Society Review 44.3‐4 (2010): 805-842) AkT 12/3/15
	11	+A wide range of interdisciplinary scholarship directly connects the high rates of arrest and incarceration of blacks and Latinos to their living conditions (Massey and Denton 1993; Sampson and Morenoff 2002; Walker et al. 1996), but the lawmakers in the political venues best situated to address these conditions are largely insulated from the political pressure to do so. What does this in¬sulation mean for the politics of crime and punishment and racial inequality in the United States? This analysis has suggested three ways in which American federalism structures representation on crime and violence in ways that disadvantage low-income racial minorities. First, the American political system makes it fairly easy to decouple crime and punishment from larger socioeconomic inequalities through a central lawmaking apparatus that is ill equipped to sustain attention to the connection between crime and larger social issues. Members of Congress are rarely held accountable for their positions on local crime problems, but there are multiple incentives for theym to respond to single-issue interest groups, professional associations, and criminal justice agencies ea¬ger to have their missions enhanced. These groups are more likely to converge on increaseeing punishment rather than on ameliorateing poor living conditions. In contrast, while many broad citizen interest groups are not opposed to more punishment, they also exhibit a strong pragmatic streak and are wary of policy prescriptions that have little visible impact on the condition of their communities. Local lawmakers must respond to these demands for community revitalization but are highly constrained in their ability to significantly address economic conditions. The disconnect between those held accountable and those with the means to promote viable so¬lutions is substantial.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-12-03 13:31:13.742

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Suketh Subramanyan

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Katy Taylor AS

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+14

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+3

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Westwood Amodwala Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SeptOct - DA - Federalism

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+UT