Name of the Case: The Estate of Sinthasomphone v. City of Milwaukee 2. Citation: 838 F.Supp. 1320 3. Date Decided: Nov. 23, 1993
4. Facts: On May 27, 1991 Konerak Sinthasomphone was found running naked down the street and bystanders called the police. Dahmer, who had been holding Sinthasomphone captive, showed up and tried to lead Sinthasomphone away. However, the police arrive before they could depart. Dahmer explained to the police Sinthasomphone had a habit of getting drunk on weekends. Dahmer cooperated with officers, and the officers made the decision to escort Sinthasomphone to Dahmer’s apartment and release Sinthasomphone to Dahmer. Shortly after the officers left Dahmer’s residence, he killed Sinthasomphone. The estate of Konerak Sinthasomphone and his family filed …show more content…
Court Deciding: United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin. 7. Decision: Motion for Summary Judgment Granted 8. Principle of Law: The best way to determine when a substantive due process right is clearly established—a legal issue—is to concentrate on the facts. Unless their conduct violates clearly established right of which reasonable person would have known, police officers are immune from suit. 9. Notes and Comments: In his findings Judge Evans discusses how substantive due process rights should be based on the facts of the case. Hence, when discussing due process rights it is impractical to attempt to paint every situation with one stroke of the brush. Instead, the totality of the circumstances must be considered to include whether a special relationship existed or if the person was in custody. In his ruling, Judge Evans states, “In terms of the information available to the officers, this case is much more like DeShaney than Ross. If, in the face of all the information the state actors had, Joshua DeShaney enjoyed no constitutional right to protection, I cannot conclude that it is clearly established that Sinthasomphone had such a right. The officers are entitled to a qualified
4. Facts: On May 27, 1991 Konerak Sinthasomphone was found running naked down the street and bystanders called the police. Dahmer, who had been holding Sinthasomphone captive, showed up and tried to lead Sinthasomphone away. However, the police arrive before they could depart. Dahmer explained to the police Sinthasomphone had a habit of getting drunk on weekends. Dahmer cooperated with officers, and the officers made the decision to escort Sinthasomphone to Dahmer’s apartment and release Sinthasomphone to Dahmer. Shortly after the officers left Dahmer’s residence, he killed Sinthasomphone. The estate of Konerak Sinthasomphone and his family filed …show more content…
Court Deciding: United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin. 7. Decision: Motion for Summary Judgment Granted 8. Principle of Law: The best way to determine when a substantive due process right is clearly established—a legal issue—is to concentrate on the facts. Unless their conduct violates clearly established right of which reasonable person would have known, police officers are immune from suit. 9. Notes and Comments: In his findings Judge Evans discusses how substantive due process rights should be based on the facts of the case. Hence, when discussing due process rights it is impractical to attempt to paint every situation with one stroke of the brush. Instead, the totality of the circumstances must be considered to include whether a special relationship existed or if the person was in custody. In his ruling, Judge Evans states, “In terms of the information available to the officers, this case is much more like DeShaney than Ross. If, in the face of all the information the state actors had, Joshua DeShaney enjoyed no constitutional right to protection, I cannot conclude that it is clearly established that Sinthasomphone had such a right. The officers are entitled to a qualified