At 10:30 one evening Jones, an African-American, was driving his blue 1992 Nissan Maxima through a white neighborhood in the City of William in the State of Mitchell. Although he was not violating any traffic laws, he was stopped by William City police officers Cagney and Lacey. Cagney asked Jones for his driver's license and vehicle registration and inquired what he was doing in the neighborhood. After Jones produced his driver's license and registration and explained where he was going, Cagney told him that she and Lacey had received a report that a Nissan had been stolen earlier in the evening about ten blocks away.

Jones did some checking the next morning and learned that the vehicle that had been stolen was a red 1985 Nissan Sentra. He consulted a lawyer and commenced a lawsuit in federal district court against the Cagney, Lacey, the City of William, Furillo (the superintendent of the Mitchell State Police Academy, which all police officers must attend to be certified to act as police officers within the State of Mitchell), and the State of Mitchell (which operated the Academy).

Jones' suit sought damages and an injunction prohibiting any police officers in the City of William from making any investigatory stops of any African-Americans unless and until the City of William adopted the procedures for investigatory stops specified in the federal Investigatory Stop Act, and requiring Furillo and the State of Mitchell to offer and require all Mitchell State Police Academy students to complete a course covering the procedures specified in the federal Investigatory Stop Act.

The Investigatory Stop Act specifies that any member of a minority race who is subjected to an investigatory stop by a police officer employed by a governmental entity that has not adopted the extensive and detailed procedures for investigatory stops specified in the Investigatory Stop Act may proceed in either state or federal court to recover damages and injunctive relief against the police officer, the police officer's employer, and any training or certifying authority responsible for the officer's failure to follow the procedures specified in the Act.

Please discuss fully all issues that might arise from Jones' lawsuit.

AT 9:00, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOUR EXAM NUMBER IS ON EACH BLUEBOOK, PUT EXAM (UNFOLDED) INTO BLUEBOOKS, AND PUT BLUEBOOKS INTO THE BOX.

HAVE A NICE VACATION!

VALIDITY OF FEDERAL INVESTIGATORY STOP ACT

Commerce power

(Substantial?) affect on IC

Interstate travel by members of minority races

Use of channels of IC by members of minority races

Power to enforce Am 14 rights

Equal protection freedom from racial discrimination

Due process

Intergovernmental immunity

Compelling state to regulate?

City, not state, in effect reqd to adopt procedures.

State required to give mandatory training.

llTH AMDT

No problem with suing officers & city.

Superintendent may be sued per stripping doctrine.

Damages won't inevitably come from state treasury.

Anyway, injunctive relief available.

Cong under com cl or Am 14 can auth fed suit agst state.

But this statute does not clearly do so.

STANDING?

Injury in fact?

a. Actual or imminent invasion/legally protected int?

Yes re damages; query re injunction.

b. Caused by conduct in q

c. Likely to be redressed by favorable dec.

Limit on asserting 3d pty's rts?

Denial wd materially impair 3d pty's enjoyment of rts?

Congressional power to expand standing?

RIPENESS?

Facts sufficiently developed that ct shd decide case?

1) Clarity of P's conduct.

2) Clarity of D's conduct.

3) Kind of challenge (on face or application) 4) Hardship to P of delaying relief

5) Case arose in federal court

Chokehold case indicates damage claim ripe, inj claim not?

More likelihood of recurrence here?

Congressional power to expand ripeness?

POLITICAL QUESTION?

1) Textually demonstrable commitment to coordinate dept?

2) Judicially discoverable & manageable standards?

3) Initial policy det of kind clearly for nonjud discretion?

4) Lack of the respect due coordinate branch?

5) Need unquestioning adherence to pol dec already made?

6) Potential embarassment from multifarious pronouncements? Kent State case involved Cong's power over Nat'l Guard.

ALTHO INJUNCTION SOUGHT, NO PULLMAN OR YOUNGER ABSTENTION