Jocks v. Tavernier is a significant legal case that unfolded within the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and was later appealed at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The case revolves around allegations of false arrest, malicious prosecution, and claims of excessive force during an altercation between a truck driver, Thomas Jocks, and an off-duty New York City police officer, Augusto Tavernier. Background Facts On October 11, 1994, Thomas Jocks, a seasoned truck driver, found himself facing engine troubles while driving on the Long Island Expressway. As a res ..read more

Graham v. Connor set an important precedent in defining the standards for evaluating the use of force by law enforcement. This case has had a lasting impact on how courts assess police actions involving force, emphasizing the objective reasonableness standard. It addressed a critical need to strike a balance between law enforcement’s duty to maintain public safety and individual rights, particularly during high-stress and rapidly evolving situations. This landmark case emerged from an incident involving a diabetic individual, Dethorne Graham, highlighting the necessity of understanding unique ..read more

The exclusive control doctrine is a legal principle often invoked in personal injury cases, particularly those involving negligence claims. It forms a critical component of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine, a Latin phrase that translates to “the thing speaks for itself.” Res ipsa loquitur allows a plaintiff to establish a presumption of negligence based on the very occurrence of an accident or injury and the likelihood that such events don’t typically occur in the absence of negligence. Within the context of personal injury law, the exclusive control doctrine posits that if an injury or accident ..read more

In New York, police misconduct and brutality have been persistent problems for years. Communities, particularly marginalized and minority groups, have raised serious concerns about excessive use of force, racial profiling, harassment, and other forms of misconduct by law enforcement officers. The cases often involve unarmed individuals, and unfortunately, some have resulted in severe injuries or even fatalities. Tennessee v. Garner, a landmark case decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1985, had a profound impact on law enforcement procedures and civil rights in New York and across the ..read more

Monroe v. Pape, a seminal case decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1961, holds great historical significance in civil rights litigation against law enforcement. This landmark decision marked a turning point in the legal battle against police misconduct and brutality, establishing a framework for holding law enforcement accountable for violating citizens’ constitutional rights. Even though this case originated in Chicago, it has implications for New York and all states. Background Monroe v. Pape originated from a harrowing incident involving the Monroe family in Chicago, Illinois, dur ..read more

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. It emphasizes the need for warrants issued based on probable cause and specifies that these warrants must describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. This constitutional provision is crucial for safeguarding an individual’s right to privacy and preventing arbitrary invasions by the government. Background In Hill v. California, police arrested two individuals found in Hill’s car for narcotics possession, discovering stolen property from a recent robbery. The ar ..read more

Floyd v. City of New York, 959 F. Supp. 2d 540 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) is a civil lawsuit that challenged New York Police Department’s “stop and frisk”.  Stop and frisk allowed the stopping, questioning, and frisking of individuals without a warrant or evident cause. The plaintiffs, a group of individuals, asserted that this policy disproportionately targeted racial minorities, violating their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Set against a backdrop of societal discord and heightened scrutiny of racial biases within law enforcement, the case questioned the delicate balance between public sa ..read more

Skorupski v. County of Suffolk, et al., a civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, highlighting alleged violations of civil rights. The incident revolves around a mistaken identity arrest. The subsequent events led to claims of excessive force and misconduct by the Suffolk County Police Department, initiating a legal battle centered on the protection of civil liberties and the accountability of law enforcement. Background Facts In the evening of July 20, 1985, 17-year-old Joseph Skorupski was walking along Route 112 in Medford, Suffolk County, Long Island. A police officer, without identifyin ..read more

Jocks v. Tavernier is a significant legal case that unfolded within the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and was later appealed at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The case revolves around allegations of false arrest, malicious prosecution, and claims of excessive force during an altercation between a truck driver, Thomas Jocks, and an off-duty New York City police officer, Augusto Tavernier. Background Facts On October 11, 1994, Thomas Jocks, a seasoned truck driver, found himself facing engine troubles while driving on the Long Island Expressway. As a res ..read more

Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin phrase, which means “the thing speaks for itself.” In order to prevail in a personal injury case, the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s negligent or wrongful actions cause the plaintiff’s injury. Ideally, the plaintiff would have access to direct evidence such as eyewitness testimony, but this is not always the case. In some instances, the only evidence that the plaintiff has is circumstantial evidence. In New York, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur means that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to prove liability if the injury was would not normally o ..read more