 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hart v. Miller4/19/2000
tutional right to bodily integrity. Such a right has been recognized under the due process clause. Rogers v. City of Little Rock, 152 F3d 790, 795 (8th Cir 1998); Jones v. Wellham, 104 F3d 620, 628 (4th Cir 1997). In Haberthur v. Coty of Raymore, Missouri, 119 F3d 720, 723 (8th Cir 1997), the court recognized a due process right to be free of unwelcome "sexual fondling and touching or other egregious sexual contact" by a police officer acting under color of law.
[ ] The second prong of the Horne test requires an examination of the objective reasonableness of Miller's actions. Horne, 1997 SD 65, , 565 NW2d at 54. We must determine whether a reasonable officer would have believed his actions were lawful. Miller's subjective beliefs about the investigation are irrelevant. Anderson, 483 US at 641, 107 SCt at 3040, 97 LEd2d at 532.
[ ] Miller was investigating the presence of marijuana found in his patrol car shortly after Hart had been arrested. Investigation into the presence of this marijuana and its ownership was clearly warranted, as Miller stated in his affidavit: " ince I was the original officer who made the arrest, I was required under my training guidelines to follow up the investigation by myself." However, the unconsented seeking of sexual favors in exchange for ignoring a violation of the criminal law "could not be considered part of any legitimate police function." Rogers, 152 F3d at 796. It is an "'arbitrary exercise of the powers of government, unrestrained by the established principles of private right and distributive justice.'" Id. at 797 (citing County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 US 833, 118 SCt 1708, 1716, 140 LEd2d 1043, 1057 (1998)). The act of solicitation is not rendered proper where there is a lack of accompanying physical force or explicit threats. Such violations can be based on mental coercion of the situation. Id. (citing Leyra v. Denno, 347 US 556, 558, 74 SCt 716, 98 LEd 948 (1954)). ()
A reasonable officer would have known the powers of his office do not include the right to solicit sex from women in exchange for the ignoring of a criminal offense. Id. at 798. ()
[ ] The trial court measured Miller's actions against a standard of objective reasonableness. On this basis, the court found that a reasonable officer in Miller's position would have believed his actions were lawful and not in violation of Hart's constitutional rights. However, it failed to focus on whether a question of fact exists as to the meaning of Miller's question to Hart and the claims of prior misconduct as interpreting the meaning of his ambiguous statement. " n the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be apparent." Anderson, 483 US at 640, 107 SCt at 3039, 97 LEd2d at 531. While Miller could properly question a suspect when circumstances reasonably indicate it is necessary, (see Spenner, 1998 SD 56, , 580 NW2d at 613), he was not at liberty to offer immunity from prosecution in exchange for sexual favors.
[ ] We reverse on this issue and remand for a trial where the jury will judge the credibility of the witnesses as to what really occurred and determine whether Miller's conduct was for a proper reason or not.
[ ] 2. Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Supervisors on Hart's § 1983 claim.
[ ] Hart properly alleged in her complaint that all the Supervisors are employees of the South Dakota Highway Patrol. However, Hart's pleadings in this case do not indicate whether Supervisors were sued in their official capacity; she simply referred to them by their names in the caption. "If a plaintiff's complaint is silent about the capacity in which she is suing the defendant, we interpret the complaint a
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 South Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|