The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
Public Law 193-322- The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, it gives the U.S. Department of Justice the right to review and investigate law enforcement agencies who may violate any individual 's rights; in the case of those agencies who receive direct federal funding. Provisions of the Omnibus Control and Safe Streets Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may also be used to review violations if any (U.S. Department of Justice).
The Hate Crime Statistics Act t (U.S. Constitution Code 13, Statute 249)
United States Constitution Code 13, State 248 Hate Crimes Act states: In General.—(1) An offense involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, …show more content…
Under The 14th Amendment Due Process Clause it protects our own individual right if we are deprived of our life, right, or liberty. The intentions of this law are clear, but again has not been a practice by police who engage in patterns of the use of excessive force. Claims under the fourteenth amendments due process clause, are usually done under a pretrial period. The pretrial and seizure periods are hard to determine by the courts. This is the period of when one period starts, or when one period ends during a hearing regarding the usage of excessive force by police. In court hearings, courts usually run into issues when trying to determine what has actually taken place during the pretrial period or the seizure period during a civil matter. Civil laws and policies designed to address excessive force matters have done very little to address the immediate problem. Not all individuals are privy to following, or abiding by rules and regulations. Although, policies are signed into law they have only acted as what I would call a "Band-Aid" solution. Lawsuits that have been paid out due to settlements don 't address the actual problem which is, concrete solutions to support police officer training and stricter penalties for those who violate their powers as police officers. Again, negative consequences resulting from these policies were the result of riots and …show more content…
Under the protections of the United States Constitution 's 11th Amendment, it ruled that the Federal Courts had the right to hear cases in law and equity brought by private citizens of the state. It was modified several times, due to its various interpretations by the higher courts. In the case of suing a police officer under the immunity claims, it was in favor of the police officer limiting individuals “individual capacities", they were barred by qualified immunity as the right asserted " no one can sue a state in Federal court without the consent of the State concerned.” A police officer has to show that they had probable cause in order to have charges, or lawsuits brought against them for violations under The U.S. Constitution. As usual, a police officer is usually acquitted of charges in arrest-related deaths as there is very little to no evidence showing what exactly took place when police and civilian contact turns deadly. These formal laws are not effective in cases involving police-related deaths because these laws don’t exactly govern police officer rules and
Public Law 193-322- The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, it gives the U.S. Department of Justice the right to review and investigate law enforcement agencies who may violate any individual 's rights; in the case of those agencies who receive direct federal funding. Provisions of the Omnibus Control and Safe Streets Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may also be used to review violations if any (U.S. Department of Justice).
The Hate Crime Statistics Act t (U.S. Constitution Code 13, Statute 249)
United States Constitution Code 13, State 248 Hate Crimes Act states: In General.—(1) An offense involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, …show more content…
Under The 14th Amendment Due Process Clause it protects our own individual right if we are deprived of our life, right, or liberty. The intentions of this law are clear, but again has not been a practice by police who engage in patterns of the use of excessive force. Claims under the fourteenth amendments due process clause, are usually done under a pretrial period. The pretrial and seizure periods are hard to determine by the courts. This is the period of when one period starts, or when one period ends during a hearing regarding the usage of excessive force by police. In court hearings, courts usually run into issues when trying to determine what has actually taken place during the pretrial period or the seizure period during a civil matter. Civil laws and policies designed to address excessive force matters have done very little to address the immediate problem. Not all individuals are privy to following, or abiding by rules and regulations. Although, policies are signed into law they have only acted as what I would call a "Band-Aid" solution. Lawsuits that have been paid out due to settlements don 't address the actual problem which is, concrete solutions to support police officer training and stricter penalties for those who violate their powers as police officers. Again, negative consequences resulting from these policies were the result of riots and …show more content…
Under the protections of the United States Constitution 's 11th Amendment, it ruled that the Federal Courts had the right to hear cases in law and equity brought by private citizens of the state. It was modified several times, due to its various interpretations by the higher courts. In the case of suing a police officer under the immunity claims, it was in favor of the police officer limiting individuals “individual capacities", they were barred by qualified immunity as the right asserted " no one can sue a state in Federal court without the consent of the State concerned.” A police officer has to show that they had probable cause in order to have charges, or lawsuits brought against them for violations under The U.S. Constitution. As usual, a police officer is usually acquitted of charges in arrest-related deaths as there is very little to no evidence showing what exactly took place when police and civilian contact turns deadly. These formal laws are not effective in cases involving police-related deaths because these laws don’t exactly govern police officer rules and