skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 72658 Find in a Library
Title: Schoolchildren - Yes, Policemen - No - Some Thoughts About the Supreme Court's Priorities Concerning the Right to a Hearing in Suspension and Removal Cases
Journal: Northwestern University Law Review  Volume:72  Issue:1  Dated:(March-April 1977)  Pages:146-170
Author(s): V G Rosenblum
Date Published: 1977
Page Count: 26
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: To assess the present state of the law with regard to assuring due process for police officers about to be dismissed from duty, this paper studies three recent opinions from Justice Stevens in the Supreme Court.
Abstract: Once the Supreme Court affirmed in Goss v. Lopez the constitutional right under the due process clause of children to hearings before they could be suspended from a public school for up to 10 days, it seemed logical to assume that police officers would be constitutionally entitled to hearings before they could be fired. Especially opaque to the community's interest in fair dealing by the police and to the police was Justice Steven's statement in Bishop v. Wood that the Federal court is not the appropriate forum in which to review the multitude of personnel decisions made daily by public agencies. Reviewing a multitude of personnel decisions is quite different from insisting that there be fair standards to govern the exercise of discretion by officials responsible for making those personnel decisions. Nowhere has the key to fairness been delineated better than in Justice Stevens's own dissenting opinion in City of Eastlake, v. Forest City Enterprises where he stated that the essence of fair procedure is that the interested parties be given a reasonable opportunity to have their dispute resolved on the merits by references to articulable rules. The police officer in Bishop had no reasonable opportunity to have his dispute with the city manager resolved on the merits by reference to articulable rules, but was victimized instead by unchanneled and unchallengeable discretion. If the Court may give schoolchildren the right to a hearing before suspension, then logically, it should also grant the same right to police officers before they are fired. Mention is also made of the case of Codd v. Velger. A total of 127 casenotes are included. (Author abstract modified)
Index Term(s): Judicial decisions; Police internal affairs; Police management; Police personnel; Right to Due Process; US Supreme Court
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.