1.

[Medium Essay] The Lewiston Police Code of Conduct (PCC) contains the following provision regarding ethics and outside employment:

1. No police officer may seek outside employment without express permission from their immediate supervisor.
2. Individuals permitted to seek outside employment shall not work more than 15 hours per week for their secondary employer.
3. At the discretion of the Lewiston Police Department (LPD), any officer engaging in outside employment may be requested to immediately cease that employment.
4. Any officer found in violation of the outside employment rules is subject to immediate termination.

Jose Ramos, a Lieutenant in the LPD, was recently fired from the department for violations pertaining to the PCC.

Ramos frequently volunteered his services to St. Anthony's Catholic church where he helped direct traffic after Sunday services and occasionally for funeral processions. Ramos never received payment from the church and the church avoided having to pay a fee to the LPD for large event traffic management.

Members of the Lewiston City Council initially brought the issue to the attention of the Superintendent of Police who subsequently terminated the employment of Ramos.

Ramos then brought suit against the city seeking reinstatement to his position.

Ramos argues that since he only volunteered he did not violate the code of conduct procedures. He also argues that if any question about his volunteering existed, the city had the obligation to ask him to stop prior to terminating his employment.

Lawyers for the city argue that since his actions cost the city money, it makes no difference that he was volunteering. The city also argues that if Ramos was unsure whether volunteering constituted outside employment he should have cleared such activity with his immediate supervisor.

Is Ramos likely to win his lawsuit? Why or why not?

2.

The city of Brownsville Burn Ordinance states the following:

1. In the event of fire danger, the Brownsville Fire Department (BFD) has the capacity to issue a city-wide burn ban. The burn ban prohibits the starting of any fires within city limits with exceptions for indoor fireplaces, propane or natural gas grills, and controlled burns conducted by the Brownsville Fire Department.
2. In deploying such a ban, the BFD will consult and utilize fire danger indexes, atmospheric conditions, and/or local weather.
3. In the event of a city-wide burn ban, the decision is final, cannot be appealed, and is subject to the sole discretion of the BFD.

Prior to the enactment of a burn ban, Wally's Hawaiian Grill, a local eating establishment, submits a lawsuit against the Brownsville Fire Department seeking to prohibit a burn ban from taking effect. The restaurant utilizes an open-pit charcoal grill for the roasting of pigs and other animals. This style of grill is not exempted from the burn ordinance.

The city contends that Wally's lacks standing and that in any case, the decision to issue a burn ban is not reviewable by a court.

Wally's argues that the burn ban would harm business and warrants judicial review.

Is Wally's likely to win the lawsuit? Why or Why Not?