Saint Leo University Active Learning Discussion Response

I’m working on a writing question and need an explanation and answer to help me learn.

Having Trouble Meeting Your Deadline?

Get your assignment on Saint Leo University Active Learning Discussion Response  completed on time. avoid delay and – ORDER NOW

Do My Paper

Sheila 

Part One

Officer files a 42 USC 1983 Action against City of Macon

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

In January of 1983, Robert Lowe, Plaintiff’, was working as a police officer for the City of Macon, Georgia. The police department began an investigation into illegal wiretapping at the police department. Believing that plaintiff was involved in the illegal wiretapping on January 30, 1983, the defendants forced the lock on the plaintiff’s office door and searched his office, desk, and gym. In addition, the defendants removed some of the plaintiff’s personal property, which the defendants believed contained evidence of criminal activity.

The purpose of the search was to locate any evidence of criminal activity that could later be used against the plaintiff in criminal prosecution. Plaintiff’s agency contacted the FBI before the search and notified the FBI of an illegal wiretapping investigation. Defendants argue that the search was conducted in the employer’s interest in shielding itself from police misconduct by an employee. The defendant does not dispute the facts of the case but argues that a jury would rule in the defendant’s favor as a matter of law. The defendant argues that a warrant was not required when an agency searches an employee’s office engaged in criminal activity. The government is interested in holding police officers to a higher standard, and the reasonable suspicion standard applies. Therefore, probable cause and a warrant are not required to search the plaintiffs’ office, desk, and gym bag were reasonable. The defendant uses several Ninth and Second Circuit opinions to bolster their argument that, as the employer, a warrant was not required to search. For example, the defendant cited Shaffer v. Field, in which an officer’s locker was searched without a warrant. In Shaffer, the court ruled that the officer did not have an expectation of privacy because the agency owned the lockers. 

If I were the judge, I would deny the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this case. The defendants violated the plaintiff’s rights under the Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights. Plaintiff was not given notice that he was being investigated, nor was a warrant obtained to search the plaintiff’s office and things. Defendants were looking for evidence that could have led to criminal charges. The defendants were required to follow all the requirements in the officer Peach Officer Bill of Rights.