Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/290792/23-3-official-oppression
Timestamp: 2018-07-22 17:02:36
Document Index: 797666152

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 411', '§ 255', '§ 257', '§ 274', '§ 129', '§ 39', 'art. 353', '§ 39', '§ 1']

23 3 official oppression | Sexual Harassment | Crime & Justice
23 3 official oppression
Official oppression West's Key Number Digest West's Key Number Digest, Municipal Corporations 174 West's Key Number Digest, Officers and Public Employees 120 West's Key Number Digest, States 81 Legal Encyclopedias C.J.S., Municipal Corporations §§ 411 to 415 C.J.S., Officers and Public Employees § 255 C.J.S., Officers and Public Employees § 257 C.J.S., Officers and Public Employees § 274 C.J.S., States § 129
If a public servant, acting under color of office, either subjects another to mistreatment, arrest, detention, search, seizure, or other legal process that the public servant knows is unlawful, or unlawfully prevents another from exercising a right or privilege, or subjects another to sexual harassment, the public servant is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor and has violated Section 39.02. An official acts under color of office if he or she either acts or purports to act in an official capacity or takes advantage of actual or purported capacity. Sexual harassment means
any explicit or implicit unwelcomed sexual advance, request for sexual favor, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, the submission to which is made a condition of a person's exercise of his or her rights or privileges.[FN1] Section 39.02 has no predecessor statute in the 1925 Code. There were earlier statutes that prohibited certain conduct, such as enforcing unauthorized punishment on prisoners[FN2] and related offenses.[FN3] Section 39.02, however, is considered broader than these statutes. The genesis of Section 39.02 was the Model Penal Code. The Model Code's statute applied to any person who acted or purported to act in an official capacity. Section 39.02 applies only to those who are actual public officials or servants. The defendants, therefore, must be those who are acting under color of their own office or employment. Thus, where a defendant, as city mayor, displayed a badge and demanded admission to a bar, creating the impression that he was a police officer, Section 39.02 was held not to have been violated because he was purporting to act not in the capacity of his own office, that of mayor, but in that of another office, police officer.[FN4] The statute prohibits any unlawful mistreatment, which includes conduct that could be either criminal or tortious but for a defense not amounting to a justification or privilege.[FN5] The state must show not only that the mistreatment was, in fact,
unlawful, but also that the defendant knew that it was unlawful.[FN6] It is not clear whether the charging instrument must allege the facts that give rise to the unlawful nature or simply that the act the state will prove was unlawful. More likely than not the latter standard will prevail.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------[FN1] V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 39.02. [FN2] Penal Code art. 353 (1925). [FN3] See Penal Code arts. 1157, 1175, 1176 (1925). Citing V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 39.02, Practice Commentary. [FN4] Blasingame v. State, 706 S.W.2d 682 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.], 1986, pet. ref'd). See also Tovar v. State, 777 S.W.2d 481 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1989, pet. ref'd). [FN5] Zuniga v. State, 664 S.W.2d 366 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1983, no pet.), citing V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 1.07(a)(36).
[FN6] Prevo v. State, 778 S.W.2d 520 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1989, pet. ref'd.); The state must also plead the defendant's knowledge that his conduct was unlawful. State v. Edmond, 903 S.W.2d 856 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1995, pet. granted)
Documents Similar To 23 3 official oppression
Soering_v_UK
Matawee Junsunjai
Information charging crewman with sexual harassment of observer
71 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 192, 68 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44,113 Doreen M. Andrade v. Mayfair Management, Incorporated Mayfair Ghent, Incorporated Larry L. Goldman Patrick J. Keating, 88 F.3d 258, 4th Cir. (1996)
DOMINGO VERSUS RAYALA, DIGESTED
Mitch Lariosa
FFH Policy
Lisa Watson v. Blue Circle Inc., Willie Ransom, 324 F.3d 1252, 11th Cir. (2003)
United States v. Jermaine Davis, 4th Cir. (2000)
ak federal resume 2015
api-261477809
1997-12-00 US Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General, December 1997 Special Report: CIA Drug Trafficking to Los Angeles, California s
api-280372142
Foundation for Media Professionals vs. Union of India
Dar 11032016
SMCR012707 - Case of Sac City woman accused of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia dismissed.pdf
908_asm1.docx