Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Supreme Court Case
Supreme Court Decision in Re Waterman, 910 2D (N.H. 2006)
The Case
The case addressed in this section of the report is that of Supreme Court case In Re Waterman, 910 A.2d 1175 (N.H. 2006). In this case, Tracy Waterman, working as a trooper for the New Hampshire State Policy was informed on August 29, 3003 that Vicky Lemere, the wife of one of Waterman's fellow troopers, informed Lieutenant Nedeau, one of Waterman's supervisors, that Waterman made threatening remarks about her supervising officers. Lamere alleged that Waterman stated she would 'like to put a bullet in Lieutenant Nedeau's head' and would 'like to deck Sergeant McCormack' if they yelled at her." (Webster, 2007, p.1)
Facts of the Case
Webster's report on this case states that an internal investigation was initiated by the State Police (Division) in which a number of witnesses were interviewed "including Lamere and Waterman." (Webster, 2007, p.1) It is reported that during the investigation that Waterman denied having made the threats. Since the investigators found Lemere to be more believable than Waterman, it was suggested that Waterman be subjected to a polygraph examination. This examination was authorized by the Division Director, Colonel Gary Sloper. It is reported by Webster that Waterman accompanied by her attorney arrived for the polygraph examination but refused to take the test.
III. Submit to the Test or Be Terminated
The investigating officer then informed Waterman that refusal to take the polygraph examination constituted the violation of a direct order and that Waterman could be disciplined "up to and including dismissal." (Webster, 2007,...
The termination was appealed by Waterman to the Personnel Appeals Board (PAB).
IV. Appeals Board Hearing
It is reported that Waterman "During the PAB hearing…acknowledged that the Division's professional conduct standards authorize the use of polygraph examinations in internal investigations. She also acknowledged that she had refused her supervisor's order and that she was advised in the presence of counsel that her refusal could result in dismissal" (Webster, 2007, p.1) Findings of the PAB state "…under the Division's professional standards of conduct, an employee is willfully insubordinate when he or she "deliberately and/or intentionally disobeys a lawful order." (Webster, 2007, p.1) The argument of Waterman was that she was "not willfully insubordinate because the order was unlawful because polygraphs are unreliable, degrading and the results are inadmissible in a court proceeding. Additionally, she urged that the order to take the polygraph was retaliatory." (Webster, 2007, p.1) The dismissal of Waterman was affirmed by the PAB and once again, Waterman appealed the PAB's decision.
V. Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court held that police officer must be above suspicion of violation of the laws that he is sworn to enforce...and must perform his duty to investigate crime and maintain the public trust, questions concerning the propriety of his…
References
Webster, L. (2007) The Magic Lasso: The Implications of Waterman on Public Employees in New Hampshire. New Hampshire Bar Association, Bar Journal, Summer, 2007. Retrieved from: http://www.nhbar.org/publications/display-journal-issue.asp?id=371
In re Waterman, 910 A.2d 1175 (N.H. 2006) in: Webster, L. (2007) The Magic Lasso: The Implications of Waterman on Public Employees in New Hampshire. New Hampshire Bar Association, Bar Journal, Summer, 2007. Retrieved from: http://www.nhbar.org/publications/display-journal-issue.asp?id=371
Eshelman v. Blubaum, 560 P.2d 1283, 1285 (Ariz. 1977 in: Webster, L. (2007) The Magic Lasso: The Implications of Waterman on Public Employees in New Hampshire. New Hampshire Bar Association, Bar Journal, Summer, 2007. Retrieved from: http://www.nhbar.org/publications/display-journal-issue.asp?id=371
Brown v. Board of Education In the opinion of this paper, there is no doubt at all that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in May, 1954 -- Brown v. Board of Education -- changed the nation in a very positive way. And it changed the nation not just in the sense of setting the wheels in motion to end school segregation, but by bringing justice to one segment of the American
For example, he voted to require that schools utilize resources to support religions activities if they designate resources to non-religious activities (Board of Education. v. Mergens, 1990). Further, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) called for vouchers to be given to families of low socioeconomic standing for both religious and secular educational institutions. This being said, Rehnquist was not able to completely disrupt the social change that Warren had started in
She has the right to call witnesses on her behalf and have them testify for her and she has the right to face and question any witnesses that are brought forth by the opposition. There are several possible alternative solutions to this problem. The first solution is that the girl can be grandfathered in. Being grandfathered in means that a situation existed before a particular situation was decided upon. In this
The plaintiffs were disabled Tennesseans who could not access the upper floors in state courthouses. They sued in Federal Court, arguing that since Tennessee was disallowing them public services for the reason that their disabilities, it was infringing Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Tennessee argued that the Eleventh Amendment banned the suit, and filed a motion to dismiss the case. It relied chiefly on Board
S. Supreme Court might have held the status of this particular land and the resulting court decision to different standards and might have even reversed decisions of law however, the failure of this point to be addressed in the previous petition barred this point from being addressed by the court in the latter decision. Bibliography City of Sherrill, New York v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York et al. Certiorari to the
Another case illustrates how important proper investigation can be to the outcome of a case. Various authors cite the case of a fire in a home that killed two children. The children's mother had left them in the care of her boyfriend, who left them alone and left the residence. A small fire was seen burning outside the home after he left. The authors note, "The suspect was arrested and