Federal Tort Claims Act
It is essential that the security and criminal justice personnel advocate, adhere to, and impose the law without prejudice or malice. The Constitution contains amendments and laws that defend and protect individuals from violation of their rights. Law enforcement and security officials retain the authority to enforce the law and ensure justice. This authority includes detaining and arresting suspects, searching and seizing property, and using deadly force in certain situations. But, with these powers officials must use discretion and act within the law thus ensure they do not violate an individual 's rights which may result in any civil or criminal liability claims (Federal Bureau of Investigation). It is vital that criminal justice and
…show more content…
security agencies ensure personnel do not abuse the authority bestowed upon staff, as individuals who behave “under the color of law”, which pertains to an officer committing an act that may or may not be within their authority. During 2012, three hundred and eighty colors of law cases were opened. The five areas that dominated the color of law cases included; excessive force, sexual assaults, false arrest, and failure to keep from harm (Federal Bureau of Investigation). The most common accusation is excessive force, as officers were often accused of using unreasonable or excessive force when making arrests, maintaining order and interrogation.
Unfortunately due to temperament of enforcing statute mishaps transpire and citizens bear injuries or loss of life and society pontificates situations which present a quandary on who should bear the responsibility of the injury or the loss?
For countless years, regulations or resources were not available for general public to support with compensation for damages, injuries, or fatalities caused by justice and security organizations. However, United States Congress enacted the Federal Tort Claims Act in 1946 to provide society the capability to obtain pecuniary reparation from the federal government for injury or fatality from unlawful or felonious actions by federal employees. Under this act, individuals were able to bring a claim against the government for indemnity such as money damages, property loss injuries or death if in compliance with the strict limitations provided and the Act. Additionally if the loss or damages that occurred had been proven to be a result of a federal employee’s action and within their employment, the complainant is allowed to recover the amount money damages that occurred. However, claims against the government cannot proceed unless the government waives its self-governing protection or allows the file suit. It had been made possible for private parties or person to sue the United States in Federal Court through this act with certain limitations of course. The government may only be sued according to the law that governs the place where the …show more content…
act occurred or omitted. Therefore, it is only applicable for conducts that are governmental in nature and is something that the private are not capable of doing. The government can be sued only if its employees or law enforcer is alleged of the following cases: physical attack, false capture and detention, battery, malicious prosecution or misuse of process. It will not be the government’s liability if libel, slander, deceit, misrepresentation or interference with contract cases is against laws enforcers. Congress has not waived immunity for such cases against a government personnel or employee. For a private employer that is also accountable for the action or case there are certain exceptions in which the government is legally responsible for the legal action. The claims based upon the federal agency or a government employee’s performance or his or her failure to exercise or perform his or her duties, and discretionary function are exemptions that are included in the discretionary function exemption.
In the state of Maryland which I currently reside the Maryland Local Government Tort Claims Act was established to protect citizens from justice and security system. The Act was sanction in 1981 by the Maryland General Assembly to afford aid towards company’s and the general public who were injured by government personnel. Subsequent to the act, state organizations benefit from legal defense, or immunity, if workers performing their civic duty harm a third party. The act allows protection to state employees only (including volunteers and executives operating in fifteen agencies). Additionally, the Act includes members of the board of elections, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs, and a limited amount of judges. The act does not pertain to local government workers the fall under the “Maryland 's Local Government Tort Claims Act”. The intent in ratifying the ruling provided intended the state could waive that immunity and grant citizens consent to sue if state personnel had caused intentional harm. It also meant the state was agreeing to compensate victims of employee malpractices by paying money damages of up to $200,000. The act established a rigid process for filing complaints. First, a claimant must submit to the Maryland State Treasurer a written statement known as a claim that explains the employee 's misdeed. The claim, which must be filed within one year of the injury, must also provide the names and addresses of the parties involved and specify a dollar amount of damages the claimant is seeking. After investigating the claim, the treasurer will either permit it to continue or deny it finally (Maryland State Treasurer). If the claim is permitted, the treasurer can offer the claimant a settlement that resolves the matter. If the claim is denied, the treasurer has waived immunity, and the claimant has just two years to bring a lawsuit in state court or forever relinquish his right to sue for that particular incident. Maryland courts have established two conditions for the state to waive immunity. One is that the member of staff was not performing within the capacity of his civic duties. An example would be a police officer who forcefully enters a home in search of narcotics without having secured a search warrant signed by a judge. “The second condition is that the member of staff acted with "malice," or the intent to do harm. Thus, a police officer who physically abused a suspected drug dealer because the officer had a personal hatred for anyone selling narcotics would be found guilty of malice. If the treasurer concludes only the first condition is present, she will grant consent to sue the state only; if the second is present, the employee is personally liable (Maryland State Treasurer).”
An example of the Federal Tort Claims Act at work is the case involving Dalehite v. the United States. In 1947, Texas City, Texas, witnessed a catastrophic explosion. Ammonium nitrate fertilizer was produced at the site under the control of the United States. This fertilizer was exported to boost the food supply in locations under military reign after World War II. The District Court determined the explosion happened because of disregard by the Government. The claim states those involved were not forthright with the dangers involved with handling the fertilizer, and lack of monitoring its loading on shipboard (Justia, n.d.). Hundreds of lawsuits were filed regarding this disaster, and in 1950, a group of claimants filed lawsuits against the federal government known as the Dalehite Case. The Federal Tort Claims Act may be carried out only on if it is proven that an employee was delinquent or behaved unlawfully. None of this was proven, and because of this it was determined the government had no liability regardless of the ownership of what was found to be the dangerous product (Justia, n.d.).
References
Archbold, C.
A. (2005). Managing the bottom line. Risk management in policing. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management , 28(1), 30.,retrieved September 27, 2014, from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/230814730_Managing_the_bottom_line_risk_management_in_policing
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and America 's Security Affairs. (n.d.). Retrieved September 22, 2004 from http://policy.defense.gov
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (n.d.). FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. Retrieved September 21, 2014 from http://www.fbi.gov
Justia. (n.d.). Dalehite v. United States - 346 U.S. 15 (1953). Retrieved on January 21, 2014, from http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/346/15/
Maryland State Treasurer (for pda/handhelds). (n.d.). Retrieved September 30, 2014 from
http://www.treasurer.state.md.us/insurance/insurance-faqs.aspx
security agencies ensure personnel do not abuse the authority bestowed upon staff, as individuals who behave “under the color of law”, which pertains to an officer committing an act that may or may not be within their authority. During 2012, three hundred and eighty colors of law cases were opened. The five areas that dominated the color of law cases included; excessive force, sexual assaults, false arrest, and failure to keep from harm (Federal Bureau of Investigation). The most common accusation is excessive force, as officers were often accused of using unreasonable or excessive force when making arrests, maintaining order and interrogation.
Unfortunately due to temperament of enforcing statute mishaps transpire and citizens bear injuries or loss of life and society pontificates situations which present a quandary on who should bear the responsibility of the injury or the loss?
For countless years, regulations or resources were not available for general public to support with compensation for damages, injuries, or fatalities caused by justice and security organizations. However, United States Congress enacted the Federal Tort Claims Act in 1946 to provide society the capability to obtain pecuniary reparation from the federal government for injury or fatality from unlawful or felonious actions by federal employees. Under this act, individuals were able to bring a claim against the government for indemnity such as money damages, property loss injuries or death if in compliance with the strict limitations provided and the Act. Additionally if the loss or damages that occurred had been proven to be a result of a federal employee’s action and within their employment, the complainant is allowed to recover the amount money damages that occurred. However, claims against the government cannot proceed unless the government waives its self-governing protection or allows the file suit. It had been made possible for private parties or person to sue the United States in Federal Court through this act with certain limitations of course. The government may only be sued according to the law that governs the place where the …show more content…
act occurred or omitted. Therefore, it is only applicable for conducts that are governmental in nature and is something that the private are not capable of doing. The government can be sued only if its employees or law enforcer is alleged of the following cases: physical attack, false capture and detention, battery, malicious prosecution or misuse of process. It will not be the government’s liability if libel, slander, deceit, misrepresentation or interference with contract cases is against laws enforcers. Congress has not waived immunity for such cases against a government personnel or employee. For a private employer that is also accountable for the action or case there are certain exceptions in which the government is legally responsible for the legal action. The claims based upon the federal agency or a government employee’s performance or his or her failure to exercise or perform his or her duties, and discretionary function are exemptions that are included in the discretionary function exemption.
In the state of Maryland which I currently reside the Maryland Local Government Tort Claims Act was established to protect citizens from justice and security system. The Act was sanction in 1981 by the Maryland General Assembly to afford aid towards company’s and the general public who were injured by government personnel. Subsequent to the act, state organizations benefit from legal defense, or immunity, if workers performing their civic duty harm a third party. The act allows protection to state employees only (including volunteers and executives operating in fifteen agencies). Additionally, the Act includes members of the board of elections, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs, and a limited amount of judges. The act does not pertain to local government workers the fall under the “Maryland 's Local Government Tort Claims Act”. The intent in ratifying the ruling provided intended the state could waive that immunity and grant citizens consent to sue if state personnel had caused intentional harm. It also meant the state was agreeing to compensate victims of employee malpractices by paying money damages of up to $200,000. The act established a rigid process for filing complaints. First, a claimant must submit to the Maryland State Treasurer a written statement known as a claim that explains the employee 's misdeed. The claim, which must be filed within one year of the injury, must also provide the names and addresses of the parties involved and specify a dollar amount of damages the claimant is seeking. After investigating the claim, the treasurer will either permit it to continue or deny it finally (Maryland State Treasurer). If the claim is permitted, the treasurer can offer the claimant a settlement that resolves the matter. If the claim is denied, the treasurer has waived immunity, and the claimant has just two years to bring a lawsuit in state court or forever relinquish his right to sue for that particular incident. Maryland courts have established two conditions for the state to waive immunity. One is that the member of staff was not performing within the capacity of his civic duties. An example would be a police officer who forcefully enters a home in search of narcotics without having secured a search warrant signed by a judge. “The second condition is that the member of staff acted with "malice," or the intent to do harm. Thus, a police officer who physically abused a suspected drug dealer because the officer had a personal hatred for anyone selling narcotics would be found guilty of malice. If the treasurer concludes only the first condition is present, she will grant consent to sue the state only; if the second is present, the employee is personally liable (Maryland State Treasurer).”
An example of the Federal Tort Claims Act at work is the case involving Dalehite v. the United States. In 1947, Texas City, Texas, witnessed a catastrophic explosion. Ammonium nitrate fertilizer was produced at the site under the control of the United States. This fertilizer was exported to boost the food supply in locations under military reign after World War II. The District Court determined the explosion happened because of disregard by the Government. The claim states those involved were not forthright with the dangers involved with handling the fertilizer, and lack of monitoring its loading on shipboard (Justia, n.d.). Hundreds of lawsuits were filed regarding this disaster, and in 1950, a group of claimants filed lawsuits against the federal government known as the Dalehite Case. The Federal Tort Claims Act may be carried out only on if it is proven that an employee was delinquent or behaved unlawfully. None of this was proven, and because of this it was determined the government had no liability regardless of the ownership of what was found to be the dangerous product (Justia, n.d.).
References
Archbold, C.
A. (2005). Managing the bottom line. Risk management in policing. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management , 28(1), 30.,retrieved September 27, 2014, from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/230814730_Managing_the_bottom_line_risk_management_in_policing
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and America 's Security Affairs. (n.d.). Retrieved September 22, 2004 from http://policy.defense.gov
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (n.d.). FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. Retrieved September 21, 2014 from http://www.fbi.gov
Justia. (n.d.). Dalehite v. United States - 346 U.S. 15 (1953). Retrieved on January 21, 2014, from http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/346/15/
Maryland State Treasurer (for pda/handhelds). (n.d.). Retrieved September 30, 2014 from
http://www.treasurer.state.md.us/insurance/insurance-faqs.aspx