Constitutional Law-2 1500 words

CASE STUDY: Jonathan Hammersmith worked as an undercover officer for the Sometown Police Department. For the past six months, he had been working deep undercover investigating a drug ring in Sometown Heights. His handler was Fred Rich. Hammersmith met with Rich every other week to update him on the progress of the investigation and to report any problems. The investigation was going well. It had taken a couple of months, but Hammersmith had earned the trust of the ringleader, Jimmy Lynch. Hammersmith accompanied Lynch everywhere and attended meetings with drug suppliers and dealers. It was at one of these meetings that Hammersmith learned why Jimmy Lynch always avoided being caught by the police. At one of the meetings, one of Lynch’s associates mentioned that he was going to “take his pa out for coffee” the next day. That struck Hammersmith as an odd thing to say, so he looked into it. He discovered that taking one’s father out for coffee not only involved picking up the check but giving “Pa” a little extra spending money too. “Pa” turned out to be none other than Jake French, a member of his task force. A little more digging revealed that several other members of the Sometown Police Department were on the take. Hammersmith at first was not sure what to do. He knew that reporting the matter internally would go badly. Officers who “ratted out” other officers were scorned by the department and given the worst assignments. What was worse, they had no recourse. While Hammersmith did not want to kill his career with the force, he also did not want to let the matter stand. He had worked for years to get drugs under control in Sometown, and he did not want that all to go to waste. Hammersmith wrote his state senator and the governor and provided them with information about the members of the force who were on the take. An investigation ensued, and the guilty parties on the force were brought down. While some of the officers on the force hated Hammersmith, he kept his job.

Why didn’t Hammersmith report the bribery to his handler, Fred Rich? What Supreme Court decisions illustrate why he did this?

What is the “public concern” requirement, and did Hammersmith’s actions meet it?

Describe what an officer must prove in order to make out a disparate treatment discrimination claim. Be specific.

Title VII protection against employment discrimination based on race, creed, color, religion, gender, and national origin is of major concern in the hiring and treatment of employees and the public. Do you think Title VII is actually adhered to in day-to-day operations or that it is often ignored? Or do you think it is followed to such extremes that people are often hired solely due to one of their defining demographics. Explain your opinion and support it with proof.

Explore the two inquiries that are necessary to decide whether the search of a government employee’s desk, locker, file cabinets, etc. for evidence of work-related misconduct violates the Fourth Amendment or not. Use Ortega v. O’Connor as your basis.