General Summary of Civil Rights Remedies for Violations of Constitutional Protections
The primary means by which an individual can seek monetary or equitable relief for federal constitutional violations by a federal or state government or one of its officials is through the federal civil rights 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (commonly called a §1983 action) and any similar state civil rights law for either federal or state constitutional violations. In Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act is M.G.L. c. 12 § 11I. This is a very complicated area of law with many exceptions and exclusions for causes of action and remedies. For example, as summarized below, unlike almost any area of law, defendant police officers have "good faith immunity" for many of their actions and decisions. (Next time you are stopped by police, try telling them that you in "good faith" thought you were complying with the law, see how far it gets you; on second thought, do not try it, you will without doubt be arrested for some reason just for being a wise-guy.) As a general summary, civil rights law proceeds as follows. However, it is best to see a local attorney for its specifics in your state.
Civil Rights law as a tort
The plaintiff claims that the defendant(s), while acting "under color of state law", intentionally deprived the plaintiff of rights under the Constitution of the United States such as the First, Fourth, or other Bill of Rights or for a substantive violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The following are examples of such claims.
The constitutional rights that the plaintiff claims the defendant(s) violated are usually the Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable seizure: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or Affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Fourth Amendment. A violation of this constitutional safeguard may be established by factual omissions from a search warrant as well as by false statements in a search warrant. In order for factual omissions in a search warrant to render the warrant invalid, the plaintiff must show that the police omitted facts with the intent to make, or with reckless disregard of whether they thereby make the search warrant affidavit misleading, and that the affidavit supplemented by the omitted information would not have been sufficient to support a finding of probable cause. The affiant's good faith does not excuse a reckless omission of material evidence from search warrant affidavit. A warrant is rendered invalid by perjury or if prepared in reckless disregard for the truth in such manner that without the false material the facts are insufficient to establish probable cause for the truth.
The right to be free from a Fourth Amendment seizure without adequate probable cause "is clearly established". Cox v. Hainey, 391 F.3d 25, 31 (2004). There is no qualified immunity for officers who seize a plaintiff with no probable cause to arrest him, then use the threat of continued detention to coerce them to submit to police interrogation. Menotti v. City of Seattle, 409 F.3d 1113, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005). The court must reject Defendants' attempts to define "reasonable" as consisting of their good faith and subjective belief as to the legality of their conduct instead of whether it was objectively reasonable. E.g. Alford v. Haner, 333 F.3d 972, 978 (9th Cir. 2003), reviewed and remanded on other grounds Deventeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 125 S.Ct. 588 (2004); Parkhurst v. Trapp, 77 F.3d 707, 712 (3rd Cir. (1996) (good faith belief in legality of conduct not sufficient). Bridgewater v. Caples, 23 F.3d 1447, 1449 (8th Cir. 1999) (officer's subjective beliefs are not relevant to qualify immunity analysis.)
Citizens subject to a systematic scheme of harassment and intimidation by the police are protected by a sec. 1983 Action. "Right to be secure in one's person" is an aspect of liberty protected by the due process clauses of both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and torts by persons acting under "color or law" are actionable in a civil action. E.g. Meredith v. Arizona, (9th Cir. 1975). In order to hold a police officer liable, it is not necessary to show that the officer actively participated in tort, it is enough if the officer failed to intervene when a tort was committed by another officer in his presence. Brunell v. Dunaway, 684 F.2d 422 (6th Cir. 1982) cert. den. 103 S.Ct. 816.
The tort of false imprisonment does not require that an individual actually be imprisoned. False imprisonment occurs any time someone intentionally and unjustifiably confines a person directly or indirectly such that the confined person is aware that his freedom of movement is constrained or is harmed by such confinement; physical contact is not required. To establish a civil rights violation based on false imprisonment, a case is made when a Plaintiff shows confinement and an awareness by the Plaintiff plus an intent of the Defendant to confine. Bryan v. Jones (5th Cir. 1976) 530 F.2d 1210 cert. den. 429 U.S. 865 97 S.Ct. 174.
"Liberty" is Constitutionally protected by both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and is a protectable deprivation of due process. The liberty interest is violated and actionable by any conduct of persons acting under color of law that "shocks the conscience". White v. Rochford, 592 F.2d 381 (7th Cir. 1971). A "seizure" is defined as those circumstances in which a "reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave". U.S. v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 1877, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980) (Stewart opinion); U.S. v. Quinn, 815 F.2d 153, 158 (1st Cir. 1987).
II. Supervisory Liability
Supervisory officers and a municipality are liable for their own negligence in failing to select, train or supervise adequately their subordinates or for their establishment, directly or implicitly, of an official policy or procedure that violates an individual's constitutional rights. Holland v. Conners 491 F2d. 539 (5th Cir 1974); Roberts v. Williams 456 F2d. 819 (5th Cir 1971) cert denied 404 U.S. 866, 92 S.Ct. 83 (1971); Bordanaro v. McLeod, 871 F2d. 1151, 1157 (1st Cir 1989); Forand v. O'Brien 602 F.Supp. 1182, 1185 (1st Cir 1985); Gutierrez/Rodriguez v. Cartagena 882 F2d. 553, 562 (1st Cir 1989); Moon v. Winfield 383 F.Supp. 31 (ND Ill 1974).
To establish supervisory liability a plaintiff must demonstrate an affirmative link between the constitutional deprivation and an adoption of a plan, policy, or custom by the supervisors showing their authorization or approval of such misconduct, such can be either expressed or implied authorization or approval. Gilmere v. City of Atlanta, 737 F.2d 894 (11th Cir. 1984). Municipalities are liable for deprivations of constitutional rights that are affirmatively linked to a policy, ordinance, regulation, decision, or custom of the municipality. Custom refers to those practices of city officials that are "so permanent and well settled" as to have "the force of law." Id.
III. Damages
"[T]he mere showing of a deprivation of a constitutionally protected or other federally protected right in and of itself establishes both injury and damages." E.g. Samso's of Ohio, Inc. v. City Counsel of Toledo, 466 F.Supp. 177, 181 (N.D. Ohio 1979). Personal humiliation, embarrassment, and mental distress imposed as a result of the deprivation of constitutional rights are injuries whose redress is considered compensatory. See e.g. generally, Baski v. Parker, 588 F.2d 965, 970 (5th Cir. 1979).
A person may sue for an award of money damages against anyone who, "under color" of any State law or custom, violates his rights under the Constitution of the United States.
The plaintiff must prove each of the following by a preponderance of the evidence:
- That the defendant(s) committed acts that violated one or more of the plaintiff's Federal constitutional rights that I have described to you;
- That in so doing the defendant(s) acted "under color" of the authority of the State of Massachusetts; and
- that the defendant's(s') acts were the legal cause of the plaintiff's damages.
The first aspect of the plaintiff's claim is that he was deprived of liberty "without due process of law". This means he was deprived of liberty without authority of law.
If the defendant is liable for the plaintiff's injuries, the plaintiff is entitled to the compensatory damages that he has proven.
Damages must be in an amount that is fair compensation for all of the plaintiff's damages. These damages are called compensatory damages. The purpose of compensatory damages is to make the plaintiff whole — that is, to compensate the plaintiff for the damage that the plaintiff has suffered. Compensatory damages are not limited to expenses that the plaintiff may have incurred because of his injury. If the plaintiff wins, he is entitled to compensatory damages for the physical injury, pain and suffering, mental anguish, shock and discomfort that he has suffered because of the defendant's conduct.
The law does not require that the plaintiff prove the amount of his losses with mathematical precision, but only with as much definiteness and accuracy as the circumstances permit. "[T]he mere showing of a deprivation of a constitutionally protected or other federally protected right in and of itself establishes both injury and damages." E.g. Samso's of Ohio Inc. v. City Counsel of Toledo, 466 F.Supp. 177, 181 (N.D. Ohio 1979).
The following are elements of damages:
- Bodily injury that the plaintiff sustained and any pain and suffering, [disability], [disfigurement], [mental anguish], [and/or] [loss of capacity for enjoyment of life] that the plaintiff experienced in the past [or will experience in the future] as a result of the bodily injury. No evidence of the value of intangible things, such as mental or physical pain and suffering, as been or need be introduced.
- Any damage to the plaintiff's personal property. The measure of that damage is the difference between the fair market value of the property immediately before [the incident complained of] and the fair market value immediately after [the incident] or [If market value is not applicable] damages an amount equal to the cost of restoring the property to its condition prior to [the incident complained of] or replacement cost.
- Punitive damages, if the plaintiff has proved that the defendant acted with malice or willfulness or with callous and reckless indifference to the safety or rights of others. One acts willfully or with reckless indifference to the rights of others when he acts in disregard of a high and excessive degree of illegality about which he knows or which would be apparent to a reasonable person in his condition.