The Limits of Policy

Iftheactionisonethatisclearlyconsideredpolicy

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: hat happens, for example, if the policymaker takes an action, clearly within the scope of policymaking authority and, as a result, constitutional injury results? If the action is one that is clearly considered policy, should the municipality be held accountable? Does it matter whether the action is an isolated action or a recurring action? Does it matter whether the injury occasioned by the action is foreseeable? Foreseeable to what extent? Bryan County v. Brown (1997) (1997) The case addresses one final policymaker issue, which is whether a municipality, a county in this case, can be held liable for an underlying constitutional violation based on the county sheriff’s single act in making a bad hiring decision? Ultimately, the case attempts to resolve how the “deliberate indifference” standard for municipal liability, enunciated in City of Canton v. Harris, should be interpreted. As in Pembaur, the constitutional injury in the Bryan County case resulted from a single act by a policymaker. Unlike Pembaur, however, the act in the...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 06/06/2011 for the course CRJU E491P taught by Professor Smith during the Spring '11 term at South Carolina.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online