Law enforcement admission change

. Parties [Identify the plaintiff and the defendant],

The plaintiffs are fourteen individuals who were allegedly excluded from admission into the police academy. They each had initially passed the application process formed under the original program. However, the program changed under the new police commissioner who changed the admission criteria. The defendants are the police academy who changed the admission criteria to suite their individual needs.

2. Facts [Summarize only those facts critical to the outcome of the case]

The facts of the case are related to the initial criteria that the 14 individuals used to pass the evaluation process. Each passed the physical fitness test, the mental assessment, and overall police assessment. However after passing all three procedures, the police commissioner changed. In this instance, the commissioner reviewed the criteria and determined that an new evaluation process was warranted. The department notified the 14 applicants of the changed criteria noting that their “passing” status may change. After the new evaluation a number of applicants didn’t pass and as a result are suing the police academy

3. Procedure [What was the outcome in the lower court(s)? Who brought the appeal?]

The lower courts ruled in favor of the police academy who had the right to change and alter their selection criteria. The plaintiffs, who were the students, appealed the case.

4. Issue [Note the central question or questions on which the case turns]

The central question is related to the ability of the police academy to change their selection criteria after the selection process is complete. Here, the academy notified all 14 individuals that they had passed the assessment warranting admission. However, the old police chief retired and thus a new police chief was promoted to the position. This new individual had conducted an assessment of the admission process, which required a change in the overall evaluation of candidates. With the change in procedure, a portion of the candidates who were initially admitted failed. As a result, the candidate is suing the police academy. Among the other factors that they considered were fluency in a foreign language, membership in a minority group, military background, police background, experience in a serviced based occupation and college education. Under the original police chief, it was found that favoritism was heavily utilized requiring a new evaluation of the overall selection process.

5. Explain the applicable law(s). Do some research on the laws cited in the case.

The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state or its subdivisions from depriving any person of \\\"property\\\" without due process of law. Flood v. Cunty of Suffolk was a case cited during this procedure. In addition, Martin v. Helstad and Stana v. School District o Pittsburg was cited. In each of these instances, an individual was promised a certain position or job based on an established policy. However the policy was changed without the ability for the individuals impacted to be heard. In addition, within this case in particular, the plaintiffs argued that irreparable harm had been done to them through the selection process