In the immediate wake of the Daniel Shaver shooting in Arizona, many Floridians are left confused and distraught; however, there is one aspect that is certain: police brutality is still a tremendous issue in America today. Unfortunately, there are countless who suffer at the hands of law enforcement, never to see justice served.
Over recent years, America has seen a drastic increase in the number of racial profiling incidents, especially on the country's roadways. Despite efforts to maintain and comply with human rights standards, this increase largely involves the apparent divide between law enforcement and non-white citizens. And despite the country's growing awareness of the issue, Florida is one of the highest-ranking states with racial injustice on the road.
Most in Jacksonville have likely heard that famous line "You have the right to remain silent..." on TV or in movies. Many may already know that these are known as "Miranda Rights," yet few may understand what they mean and what protections they may offer suspects when being interrogated by police.
Congratulations to Bill Sheppard and Sam Jacobson for their receipt of the Robert J. Beckham Equal Justice Award, given each year by Jacksonville Area Legal Aid (JALA). This award is given in recognition of their efforts to "provide justice for the poor and marginalized", and specifically recognizes their "pro bono service, philanthropy and unwavering dedication to fairness and honesty."
Qualified immunity is one of the largest obstacles facing civil rights attorneys. The doctrine of qualified immunity gives police officers or other state actors immunity from suit in certain situations. To overcome the defense the plaintiff first needs to prove that (1) the defendant violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (2) that the constitutional violation
The legal doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials who apply force reasonably or apply force in situations where the law is unclear. The purpose of qualified immunity is to prevent government officials from being discouraged carrying out their duties or protecting themselves from violent individuals. In practice, however, qualified immunity often causes judges to throw meritorious lawsuits out of court.
Many people accept violence between prisoners as an every-day facet of life for incarcerated individuals. Some even argue that such violence should be tolerated as part of the punishment for committing a crime. While these issues often remain unaddressed by policy-makers and prison officials, the Eighth Amendment provides recourse for certain individuals who have been the victim of violence at the hands of another inmate. An Eighth Amendment claim for failing to protect an inmate from violence is difficult to bring. However, a recent decision, Lane v. Philbin shows that these causes of action remain viable in the Eleventh Circuit. The Lane case reversed a lower court which had granted a prisoner's motion to dismiss.
In a recent groundbreaking opinion written by Judge Mark Walker, Winstead v. Lafayette Board of County Commissioners, the Northern District held that Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of an employee's sexual orientation or their perceived sexual orientation. The opinion arose out of a lawsuit filed by two female EMTs employed by Lafayette County. Their complaint alleged that members of the Lafayette County Commission had engaged in harassment and failed to protect them from harassment of a co-worker based on his perception of their sexual orientation. The county argued that the plaintiff's claims should be dismissed because Title VII does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
The AAJ Civil Rights Section presents the Leonard Weinglass in Defense of Civil Liberties Award, annually, to honor an attorney or a civil rights advocate who has made a noteworthy contribution to the defense of our civil rights and civil liberties bringing, trying, or resolving a suit, or by otherwise protecting or advancing civil liberties, in a way that has had a significant impact.
In the latest battle over gun control in Florida, the Florida First District Court of Appeal recently rejected a challenge against the University of Florida's regulations on firearms. The case, Florida Carry, Inc. v. University of Florida, held that the University of Florida could enforce its campus-wide ban on firearms in college housing. While the plaintiff alleged both Second Amendment and state law claims, the case as a whole turned on whether on-campus housing should be considered a home or part of the school under state and federal law.