Carrollton Police Officer Thomas Popescu advised his supervisors that he injured his leg, falling in the parking lot while coming on duty. He took three paid sick leave days. He submitted his medical bills to his insurance carrier; later became aware that the City paid his medical bills under its workers' compensation plan. He did not filed a compensation claim. Other officers advised the Carrollton Police Chief that Popescu falsely claimed a work injury so as not pay for his medical bills. On August 14, 1987, the Chief directly gave Popescu two charge letters, which placed him on indefinite suspension. The first letter stated he would remain suspended indefinitely for various violations of policy. The second letter stated he would remain indefinitely suspended for insubordination. Both of the August 14 letters directed to the Carrollton Civil Service Commission Code violations and the policy violations that Popescu allegedly committed. Neither letter notified Popescu that he if appealed to an independent hearing examiner; he would waive his right to appeal to the district court except under certain circumstances. On …show more content…
August 25, 1987, the Chief hand delivered two more letters to Popescu. The first letter retracted the first letter of August 14. The second letter intended to correct the second letter of August 14, which failed to advise Popescu of his appellate options and where the City failed to inform him. The letter also reinstated Popescu only from August 14 to August 25. The letter also advised Popescu of his right to appeal his indefinite suspension either to the Carrollton Civil Service Commission or to an independent third-party hearing examiner. Popescu appealed his indefinite suspension to an independent hearing examiner. The hearing examiner upheld Popescu's indefinite suspension. Popescu then appealed that decision to the district court. Popescu requested the trial court for a partial summary judgment alleging that the hearing examiner lacked jurisdiction because the second August 14 letter did not comply with statutory requirements. He added that the City's second August 25 letter amended the second August 14 letter unlawfully. The trial court awarded summary judgment to the indefinite suspension, damages and attorneys' fees. In addition, the trial court granted Popescu summary judgment for his reinstatement and for damages. The City of Carrollton appealed the judgments and argued that the trial court erred in its summary judgement Did the trial court err in its judgment? No Affirmed The Texas Revised Civil Statutes limits police departments to their original statements and written charges without the right to amend. Police departments must fully perform all of their conditions established by the civil service laws before a hearing examiner obtains jurisdiction over the subject matter. One of the purposes of the Civil Service Act is to provide for and protect the rights of persons serving as officers and employees of police departments. Reviewing the summary judgment evidence in a perspective most favorable to the City, Popescu still showed that the City failed to give the required statutory notice in the second letter on August 14.
The second August 25 letter amounted to an unlawful amendment. The City relied on section 16b(b) of article 1269m, which provided that "[i]n a civil service hearing conducted under this subsection, the department head is restricted to his original written statement and charges which may not be amended." However, section 16c(a) included in pertinent part the following language, "in addition to other notice requirements prescribed by this Act. The language in this section not only points out that the Legislature intentionally imposed the notice requirements contained in section 16c on the City, but all of the notice requirements contained within the
Act.
City of Pinellas Park v. Brown was a case brought to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District by the plaintiff Brown. In this case, the Brown family sued the City of Pinellas Sheriff Department on the grounds of negligence that resulted in the tragic death of two Brown sisters during a police pursuit of a fleeing traffic violator Mr. Deady. The facts in this case are straight forward, and I shall brief them as logical as possible.
It is the case against “Dr. Wolodzko” (defendant) by “Mrs. Stowers” (the plaintiff) in Wayne County court for the actions taken by the defendant and confinement of the plaintiff in the private mental hospital based on valid court order.
The decision was a 6-3 decision. The Justices that agreed with the ruling of the court were Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, White, Stevens, and O’Connor. The Justices that did not agree were Powell, Berger, and Rehnquist.
There have been many, many court cases throughout the history of the United States. One important case that I believe to be important is the court case of Clinton v. New York. This case involves more than just President Bill Clinton, the City of New York; it involved Snake River Farmers’ as well. This case mostly resolves around the president’s power of the line item veto. In 1996 President Bill Clinton signed the Line Item Veto Act into law. This would allow the president to get rid of a part of a bill and not disapprove the entire bill. The first time that President Clinton used this power he used it to refine the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, he got rid of a part of the bill that waived the Federal Governments statutory right to get back or receive $2.6 billion in taxes that were levied by the City of New York. President Clinton also line item vetoed a section of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 this wouldn’t allow certain food processors and refiners to sell their stock to farmers to defer the recognition of capital gains. This is when the Snake River Farmers’ and City of New York went after Clinton for doing so this is where the case of Clinton v. The City of New York originated from. In this case there were constitutional issues that were raised, major arguments presented, and the final ruling from the Supreme Court.
In a case similar to Fraser, a student was sent home twice for wearing a Marilyn Manson t-shirt with a three-faced Jesus on the back. The t-shirt also referenced biblical statements that were deemed inappropriate and disruptive to the learning environment. The court found that the school had the right to impose action for words or phrases that were considered vulgar and offensive. Just as with the Fraser case, the ethical significance is that students do not have the right to wear articles of clothing that depict messages or images in an offensive, public manner.
Stuart v. Nappi was class lawsuit Stuart’s mother filed against school personnel and the Danbury Board of Education because she claimed that her daughter was not receiving the rights granted in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Kathy Stuart was a student at Danbury High School in Connecticut with serious emotional, behavior, and academic difficulties. She was suppose to be in special education classes, but for some reason she hardly ever attended them. Kathy was involved in a school-wide disturbance. As a result of her complicity in these disturbances, she received a ten-day disciplinary suspension and was scheduled to appear at a disciplinary hearing. The Superintendent of Danbury Schools recommended to the Danbury Board of Education
fact that there would have to be considerable respect given to officer discretion in light
The Supreme Court exercised its interpretation of the Constitution and found that a violation of the First Amendment was apparent and therefore, also a violation of the fourteenth Amendment showing that due process of the law was not given.
Defense attorney, Katie Krejci argued that the state attorney, Maureen Feeney, and the police department didn’t provide the disciplinary file of officer Taylor Siljander, the plaintiff, in a timely manner.
Facts: Two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter a colored woman and Richard Loving a white man, got married in the District of Columbia. The Loving's returned to Virginia and established their marriage. The Caroline court issued an indictment charging the Loving's with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. The state decides, who can and cannot get married. The Loving's were convicted of violating 20-55 of Virginia's code.
Nearly every aspect of law enforcement has a court decision that governs criteria. Most court rulings are the result of civil lawsuit towards a police officer and agency. However, currently, there is no law that mandates law enforcement driver training. When it comes to firearms, negligence by officers has resulted in a multitude of court rulings. Popow v. City of Margate, 1979, is a particularly interesting case that outlines failed firearms training by an agency. In this case, an officer chasing a suspect during a foot pursuit fired at the suspect, striking and killing an innocent bystander (Justia.com, 2017). The court ruled that the agency was “grossly negligent” of “failure to train” (Justia.com, 2017). As a result, nearly every agency requires annual firearms training and has written policy concerning the same. Officers must show proficiency in firearms use every year to maintain their certification. Many states even impose fines on officers for
Minimum wage increased in 20 states with approval of lawmakers as we stepped into 2015. That when should the government to step in and interfere with business in free market in the United States remains a hot topic in the society. Muller v. NYC case took place at a time when the economy was booming, the so-called Gilded Age. However, that was an era of sin covered with fair skin because business owners exploited workers as dispensable commodities. NYC implemented a new law in 1896 to limit maximum working hours for bakers to 10 hours a day and 60 hours a week to help protect them as well as public health. Lochner, a bakery owner in NYC in early 20th century, was fined twice for not complying with the law. Feeling interfered by an unjust law,
The employer cited her mental condition and prolonged absence as the reason the dismissal. She decided to enlist the services of an attorney to get her employment benefits if not reinstatement to her job. However, since finishing her follow-up checkups, Dominic Ezeli, her doctor at the community hospital, says he has not heard from her.
However, police whistleblower is unfortunately all too rare. In the rare cases when other cops do muster the strength to and integrity to report gross misconduct of another officer, the whistleblower is often times ostracized, intimidated, threats made to the security of their jobs, and threats to their lives. For instance, Mr. Barron Bowling was awarded $830,000 due to the life long brain damage from a beating he received from a Drug Enforcement Administration agent Timothy McCue in Kansas City, KS. Timothy McCue claimed that Mr. Bowling resisted arrest. Fortunately a police detective names Max Seifert had the strength to report the wrong doings of the DEA agent. In doing so, he said reported that Timothy McCue threatened to kill Mr. Bowling, called him White Trash, and called him a system dodging inbred hillbilly. Members of the department destroyed photos of the physical damage done to Mr Bowling. Officer Seifert took the statement of witnesses and re-documented the physical and presented it to officials. For being a whistleblower, officer Seifert was forced into early retirement, lost a sizeable part of his pension, and retirement health insurance. In addition, his name and service was slandered and
Municipal law and International law have their own distinction and the lay out in their approaches. They have different classification on how they classify their internal avenue of understanding. Municipal and International law consists of regulated subjects that they had governed and maintained policies. To know about the two laws, the discussions to be followed and distinguishes which among these would prevail in the supremacy for the entire globe.