Also known as: official misconducts · misconduct in office
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A public officer's corrupt violation of assigned duties by malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Oswald Orozco walked quickly from a pier carrying a duffle bag. An officer stopped him without reasonable suspicion and ran his name, discovering an outstanding warrant for an unpaid fine. The officer arrested Orozco on the warrant and found narcotics in the bag during a search incident to arrest. The court admitted the narcotics because the valid warrant broke the causal chain despite the initial misconduct.
Olga O'Neill published a newsletter claiming Mayor Orion Orlov directed police to ignore code violations by campaign donors. Officials sought to enjoin further publication as a public nuisance. Orlov's suit reached the Supreme Court. The court held that the First Amendment prohibits prior restraint on reporting alleged official misconduct by public officials.
Omar Olson returned home to find federal agents had entered without a warrant and seized documents. Olson sued the agents for damages arising from the official misconduct. The court recognized a cause of action against federal officers for Fourth Amendment violations committed during the search.
Orson Ochoa, a sitting representative, faced a House committee inquiry into alleged kickbacks from contractors. The committee examined his qualifications and official misconduct since taking office. Ochoa challenged the scope of the investigation. The court held that the House possessed sole authority to determine member qualifications and address misconduct claims.
Opal Okoro's home was searched under a warrant later found to lack probable cause. The officers had relied in good faith on the magistrate's issuance. Okoro moved to suppress evidence of official misconduct uncovered in the search. The court admitted the evidence because the officers acted reasonably on the warrant.
Outback Mining employees detained a contractor and alleged prison officials acted with discriminatory intent. The contractor's complaint described official misconduct but lacked specific factual allegations tying the named defendants to the policy. The court dismissed the claims against the high-level officials for failure to plead a plausible discriminatory state of mind.
A plaintiff must demonstrate that the officer engaged in a corrupt violation of assigned duties through malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance. The conduct must involve an abuse of official authority rather than mere error or negligence. Courts examine whether the officer acted with corrupt intent in carrying out or failing to carry out duties.
Purposeful or flagrant misconduct by officers weighs strongly in favor of suppression under the attenuation doctrine. Courts weigh the flagrancy factor along with temporal proximity and intervening circumstances to decide whether the taint of an illegal stop or search has dissipated. When misconduct is merely negligent rather than deliberate, an intervening warrant is more likely to break the causal chain.
…this question, we must consider once again the tension between the sometimes competing goals of, on the one hand, deterring official misconduct and removing inducements to unreasonable invasions of privacy and, on the other, establishing procedures under which criminal defendants are "acquitted or convicted on the basis of all the…
…of over half a century has shown neither deters errant office
…that constitutes the business and the declared nuisance. In the case of public officers, it is the reiteration of charges of official misconduct
…and residency; his involvement in a civil suit (in which he had been held in contempt); and "[m]atters of . . . alleged official misconduct since January 3, 1961." See Hearings on H. R. Res. No. 1 before Select Committee Pursuant to H. R. Res. No. 1, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 5 (1967) (hereinafter Hearings). Powell appeared at the…
…respondent’s complaint against the defendants who are not before us. Respondent’s account of his prison ordeal alleges serious official misconduct that we need not address here. Our decision is limited to the determination that respondent’s complaint does not entitle him to relief from petitioners. C Respondent offers three…
The First Amendment protects such reporting but requires public officials to prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence in defamation actions. Publishers may rely on credible sources and rumors without verification so long as they do not act with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Summary judgment is often appropriate when the record lacks evidence of actual malice.
The Constitution authorizes removal only through impeachment by the House followed by conviction in the Senate for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. No other mechanism such as a joint resolution, recall election, or judicial order may remove a sitting president. The House impeaches by simple majority and the Senate convicts by a two-thirds vote.