Our Firm s Suit On Behalf Of Client Michael Ndichi Essay

Our firm’s suit on behalf of client Michael Ndichi sets forth two arguments against the police. The first, a Constitutional argument, counters the police’s anticipated qualified immunity defense in this suit, and the second, a psychological argument, argues that the police department’s policies left Officer Jensen ill-equipped to make good decisions. In this memo, I present Constitutional and psychological evidence to undergird each of these arguments. As an initial matter, we must be prepared to overcome an assertion from the police that Jensen is entitled to qualified immunity. If the police prevail in that defense, the trial court will enter summary judgment against our client and negate his claims before they are aired in the courtroom. To avoid this, we must convince the court that the answers to the following two questions are affirmative: did Jensen’s conduct violate our client’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures, and was our client’s right â€Å"clearly established†¦in light of the specific context of the case†? (Scott 377). With respect to the Fourth Amendment inquiry, our task is to establish that Jensen’s conduct constituted an unreasonable seizure. First, we must show that the facts comport with the Constitutional definition of â€Å"seizure.† This is unproblematic: â€Å"[A] Fourth Amendment seizure [occurs]†¦when there is a governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied† (Scott 381). The government, via Jensen’s