Legal Issues in Criminal Justice Administration

Case Brief Guidelines

 

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Legal Issues in Criminal Justice Administration
GET AN ESSAY WRITTEN FOR YOU FROM AS LOW AS $13/PAGE
Order Essay
  1. Students will brief all assigned cases for the module in which they are assigned. The case briefs are to be the student’s ownwork. The learning process takes place with the student reading, analyzing, and summarizing the facts and issues in a case; copying someone else’s work is not part of the learning process. However, students may consult with each other, discuss cases, and use the product of those discussions to write their briefs.

 

  1. Your classmates will depend on youto write a thorough, accurate brief of the case(s) assigned. You, in turn, will rely on your classmates to do the same for their cases.

 

  1. A copy of your brief will be posted in the appropriate module’s Case Brief Discussion board.

 

  1. Be prepared to explain, justify, or dissent from your assigned case, as the instructor and/or classmates may query you about the case.

 

  1. Case briefs will be written in the following format (mandatory):

 

    1. Title and Citation (e.g. Jones v. Smith, 123 F.3d 456 (11thCir. 2004))

 

    1. Type of Action (e.g. civil suit for money damages for violation of free speech rights under the First Amendment.)

 

    1. Facts of the Case (Discuss relevant facts; what happened? Why is this matter in court?)

 

    1. Contentions of the Parties (What are the best arguments favoring each party?)
  • Smith argues that:
  • Jones argues that:

 

    1. Issue(s) (The issue relevant to the subjects studied in the module in which it is assigned, e.g. Were Jones’ rights under the First Amendment violated when he was fired for speaking at a political rally?)

 

    1. Decision (How did the court rule on that issue?)

 

    1. Reasoning (Why did the court rule the way it did? This is the most important part of the case.)

 

    1. Rule of Law (What onelegal point do we take from this case?)

 

  1. Length: Should not exceed 2 pages.

 

  1. Do not post a brief without checking your spelling and grammar.You will lose points for errors.

 

  1. Important Point: Each time you brief a case, remember whythe case is selected at this point in the course. Some cases address multiple issues.You do not need to discuss all of the issues. Focus on the point of law where the case is assigned in the course.

 

  1. Case briefs grades are weighted as follows (total 4 points):
    1. Summary of facts:1 point
    2. Format: 1 point
    3. Clarity of writing:1 point
    4. Understanding of the court’s decision:1 point

 

Assigned Cases

 

Module One:

 

Reasonable suspicion 4th Amendment:

  1. U.S. v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2001)

 

5th Amendment after Miranda:

  1. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981)

 

Right to counsel:

  1. United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264 (1980)

 

Vague or overbroad:

  1. Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974)

 

Off-duty conduct and discipline:

  1. Oddsen v. Board of Fire & Police Comm., 321 N.W. 2d 161 (Wis. 1982)

 

Module Two:

 

Due Process – Substantive and Procedural:

  1. Muncy v. City of Dallas, 335 F.3d 394 (5th Cir.2003)
  2. Silva v. Bieluch, 351 F.3d 1045 (11th Cir. 2003)

 

Liberty Interest and Equal Protection:

  1. Zalewska v. County of Sullivan, 316 F.3d 314 (2d Cir. 2003)

 

Due Process – Procedural:

  1. Gilbert v. Homar, 117 S.Ct. 1807 (1997)
  2. Dixon v. City of New Richmond, 334 F.3d 691 (7th Cir. 2003)

 

Liberty Claims:

  1. Cannon v. City of West Palm Beach, 250 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2001)

 

Equal Protection:

  1. Williams v. Hansen, 326 F.3d 569 (4th Cir. 2003)

 

Right of Privacy:

  1. Shahar v. Bowers, 114 F.3d 1097 (11th Cir. 1997)

 

Freedom of Association:

  1. Parks v. City of Warner Robbins, 43 F.3d 609 (11th Cir. 1995)
  2. Tindle v. Caudell, 56 F.3d 966 (8th Cir. 1995)
  3. Ross v. Clayton County, 173 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 1999)

 

Freedom of Religion:

  1. Endres v. Indiana State Police, 334 F.3d 618 (7th Cir. 2003)
  2. Ryan v. U.S. Department of Justice, 950 F.2d 458 (7th Cir. 1991)

 


Module Three:

 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)–Supreme Court:

  1. Toyota Motor Co. v. Williams, 122 S. Ct. 681 (2002)
  2. U.S. Airways v. Barnett, 122 S. Ct. 1516 (2002)

 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)–Hiring Under the ADA:

  1. Holiday v. City of Chattanooga, 206 F.3d 637 (6th Cir. 2000)

 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)–Reasonable Accommodation:

  1. Holbrook v. City of Alpharetta, 112 F.3d 1522 (11th Cir. 1997)

 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)–Discipline:

  1. Aldrup v. Caldera, 274 F.3d 282 (5th Cir. 2001)

 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)–Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA):

  1. Phelan v. City of Chicago, 347 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2003)

 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964–Racial Discrimination:

  1. Grutter v. Bollinger, 123 S. Ct. 2325 (June 2003)
  2. Williams v. Consolidated City of Jacksonville, 341 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2003)

 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964–Religious Discrimination:

  1. Mandell v. County of Suffolk, 316 F.3d 368 (2003)

 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964–Fair Labors Standards Act:

  1. Houston Police Officers Union v. Houston, 330 F.3d 298 (5th Cir. 2003)

 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964–Pregnancy Discrimination Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e(k)):

  1. Adams v. Nolan, 962 F.2d 791 (8th Cir. 1992)

 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964–Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA):

  1. Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2003)
  2. Smith v. City of Jackson, 125 S. Ct. 1536 (2005)

 


Module Four:

 

Sexual harassment:

  1. Burlington Northern Railway v. White, 126 S.Ct. 2405 (2006)
  2. Meritor Bank v. Vinson, 106 S. Ct. 2399 (1986)
  3. Johnson v. Rice, 237 F. Supp.2d 1330 (M.D.FL 2002)
  4. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998)
  5. Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 118 S. Ct. 2257 (1998)
  6. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc.,118 S. Ct. 998 (1998)
  7. Gonzales v. New York Department of Corrections, 122 F. Supp. 2d. 335 (N.D.N.Y. 2000)
  8. Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (2004)
  9. Thomas v. Galveston County, 953 F. Supp. 504 (S.D. Tex. 1997)
  10. Smith v. City of Chattanooga, WL 4374039 (4th Cir. 2008)
  11. McCurdy v. Arkansas State Police, 375 F. 3 762 (8th Cir. 2004)
  12. Wright v. Rolette County, 417 F. 3d 879 (8th Cir. 2005)

 

Module Five:

 

Compelled interviews:

  1. Garrity v. State of New Jersey, 87 S. Ct. 616 (1967)
  2. Gardner v. Broderick, 88 S. Ct. 1913 (1968)
  3. (a) Kastigar v. United States, 92 S.Ct. 1653 (1972)
  1. (b) In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 75 F.3d 446 (9th Cir. 1996)
  1. (c) Grand Jury Subpoena v. United States, 40 F.3d 1096 (10th Cir. 1994)
  2. Dept. of Justice v. FLRA, 975 F.2d 218 (5th Cir. 1992)
  3. LaChance v. Erickson, 118 S.Ct. 753 (1998)
  4. Harrison v. Wille, 132 F.3d 679 (11th Cir. 1998)
  5. Chan v. Wodnicki, 123 F. 3d 1005 (7th Cir. 1998)
  6. U.S. v. Veal,1l53 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 1998)
  7. NASA v. NLRA, 119 S. Ct. 1979 (1999)
  8. Driebel, v. City of Milwaukee, 298 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2002)
  9. Dwan v. City of Boston, 329 F. 3d 275 (1st Cir. 2003)
  10. U.S. v. Waldon, 363 F.3d 1103 (11th Cir. 2004)
  11. Luna v. Mass., 354 F.3d 108 (1st Cir. 2004)
  12. Kirkpatrick v. City of Los Angeles, 803 F.2d 485 (9th Cir. 1986)
  13. O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987)
  14. Copeland v. Philadelphia Police Department, 840 F.2d 1139 (3rd Cir. 1989)
  15. Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, 378 U.S. 52 (1964)

 


Module Six:

 

Free Speech:

  1. Pickering v. Board of Education, 88 S.Ct. 1731 (1968)
  2. Connick v. Myers, 103 S. Ct. 1684 (1983)
  3. Rankin v. McPherson, 107 S. Ct. 2891 (1987)

 

Analysis of Free Speech Cases:

  1. Skaarup v. N. Las Vegas, 320 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2003)
  2. Eiland v. City of Montgomery, 797 F.2d 953 (11th Cir. 1986)
  3. Pappas v. Guiliani, 118 F. Supp. 2d 433 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)
  4. City of San Diego v. Roe, 543 U.S. 77 (2004) (off-duty speech)

 

Political Activity/Speech:

  1. Meaney v. Dever, 326 F.3d 283 (1st Cir. 2003)

 

Testimony to Government Body:

  1. Reilly v. City of Atlantic City, 532 F. 3d 216 (3rd Cir. 2008)
  2. Kinney v. Weaver, 367 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2004)
  3. Hoffman v. Dougher, 2006 WL 2709703 (M.D. Pa. 2006) (EEOC testimony)

 

Statements to the Press:

  1. Walton v. Safir, 122 F. Supp.2d 466 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)
  2. Williams v. Seniff, 342 F.3d 774 (7th Cir. 2003)
  3. Nixon v. City of Houston, 511 F.3d 494 (5th Cir. 2007)

 

Reporting Misconduct:

  1. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 126 S. Ct. 1951 (2006)

 

Violating Chain of Command:

  1. Shands v. Kennett, 993 F. 2d 1337 (8th Cir. 1993)

 

Prior Restraint on Speech:

  1. Latino Officers Association v. Safir, 165 F. Supp. 2d 587 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)

 

Religious Speech:

  1. Altman v. Minn. Dept. of Corrections, 251 F.3d 1199 (8th Cir. 2001)
  2. Daniels v. City of Arlington, Texas, 246 F.3d 500 (5th Cir. 2001)

 

Mixed Motive:

  1. Sangendorf-Teal v. Rennsselaer County, 100 F. 3d 270 (2nd Cir. 1996)

 


Module Seven:

 

Privacy –Office:

  1. O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987)
  2. Cronin v. Town of Amesbury, 895 F. Supp. 375 (D. Mass. 1995)

 

Privacy –Video:

  1. U.S. v. Taketa, 923 F.2d 665 (9th Cir. 1991)

 

Privacy –Mixed Motives:

  1. Lowe v. City of Macon, 720 F. Supp. 994 (M.D. Ga. 1989)

 

Privacy –Computers and Disks:

  1. U.S. v. Slanina, 283 F. 3d 670 (5th Cir. 2002)

 

Privacy –Drug Testing:

  1. Railway Labor Executives v. Skinner, 934 F.2d 1096 (9th Cir. 1991)
  2. National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 (1989)
  3. National Federation of Federal Employees v. Cheney, 884 F.2d 603 (D.C. Cir. 1989)
  4. National Treasury Employees Union v. Department of Treasury, 25 F.3d 237 (5th Cir. 1994)

 

Supervisory Liability –Civil Liability:

  1. Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 125 S. Ct. 2796 (2005)
  2. Stemler v. City of Florence, 126 F. 3d 856 (6th Cir. 1997)

 

Supervisory Liability –Negligent Hiring and Retention:

  1. Commissions of Bryan County v. Brown, 117 S.Ct. 1382 (1997)

 

Supervisory Liability –Failure to Train:

  1. Brower v. Inyo, 109 S. Ct. 1378 (1989)
  2. Lewis v. City of St. Petersburg, 260 F. 3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2001)
  3. City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989)
  4. Forgan v. Howard County, Texas, 494 F.3d 518 (5th Cir. 2007)

 

Supervisory Liability –Department Policy as Violative of Rights:

  1. Wilson v. Jones, 251 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2001)
  2. Garner v. Memphis, 8 F. 3d 358 (6th Cir.1993)

 

Supervisory Liability –Control and Supervision:

  1. Holland v. Harrington, 268 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2001)

 

Supervisory Liability –Discipline:

  1. Vann v. City of New York, 72 F.3d 1040 (2d Cir. 1996)
  2. Sims v. Adams, 537 F.2d 829 (5th Cir. 1976)

 

Supervisory Liability –Direct Act by Supervisor:

  1. Lori Graves v. City of Coeur D’Alene, 339 F.3d 828 (9th Cir. 2003)

 

Supervisory Liability –Excessive Force:

  1. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
  2. Thomas v. Durastanti, 607 F.3d 655 (10th Cir. 2010)

Grand Paper Writers
Order NOW For A 10% Discount!
Pages (550 words)
Approximate price: -

Our Advantages

Plagiarism Free Papers

All papers are written by the best professional writers to ensure 100% originality. We always provide plagiarism reports whenever we deliver completed papers.

Free Revisions

All papers by Grand Paper Writers are completed and submitted on time. This timely delivery of papers gives you time to go through the paper before the official deadline.

Title-page

As an additional service, we will provide a title page that precedes the contents of your paper. Here, you will provide your personal details.

Bibliography

We also ensure that we provide an extra page for the references or bibliographies following referencing rules.

Originality & Security

At Grandpaperwriters.com, we guarantee students for the provision of security and original work. All your personal information is handled with confidentiality and is not shared with third parties. Additionally, we ensure that we provide original content with accompanying plagiarism reports to show originality.

24/7 Customer Support

Our customer support team is always available 24/7 to provide instant responses to any queries raised by students.

Try it now!

Calculate the price of your order

We'll send you the first draft for approval by at
Total price:
$0.00

How it works?

Follow these simple steps to get your paper done

Place your order

Fill in the order form and provide all details of your assignment.

Proceed with the payment

Choose the payment system that suits you most.

Receive the final file

Once your paper is ready, we will email it to you.

Our Services

Grandpaperwriters.com has the best professional essay writers for quality services.

Pricing

Flexible Pricing

Here, a Grandpaperwriters.com, we do not compromise on the time of our clients. We always deliver all completed papers on or before the deadlines.

Communication

Admission Help & Client-Writer Contact

Grandpaperwriters.com provides an interactive portal where students can communicate directly to their writers.

Deadlines

Paper Submission

Here, a Grandpaperwriters.com, we do not compromise on the time of our clients. We always deliver all completed papers on or before the deadlines.

Reviews

Customer Feedback

Grandpaperwriters.com appreciates feedback from our clients to help us improve the delivery of essay writing services. As such, we are constantly changing our policies to ensure maximum customer and writer satisfaction.