Merkle filed an application for habeas corpus with the Court of Common Pleas for Montgomery County, and on January 16, 1998, his application was accepted and the charges against her were dismissed. Merkle pursued administrative appeals concerning her employment status, and after 91 days of suspension and conciliation under the collective agreement, she again earned with the salary refund. Meanwhile, Merkle left his post in the district. This appeal raises a number of interesting questions arising from an alleged constitutional act committed by a local school district and its superintendent during the arrest and persecution of one of their teachers for the illegitimate removal of school materials. The applicant, Lou Ann Merkle, a former teacher with the Upper Dublin School District (“the District”), filed this complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania at 42 U.C 1983. She alleged violations of their rights in connection with the first, fourth, sixth and fourteenth Amendments, as well as strict government prosecutions for defamation, breach of privacy, false arrests and malicious prosecutions. The accused are the District Chief, District Chief Dr. Clair Brown, Jr., and Sandy Run Middle School Principal Margaret Thomas (together “the advocates of the school”); and the Upper Dublin Police Department and the Upper Dublin Police Inspector Jack Hahn (together “police accused”). 4. This provision states that “[a] person is guilty of theft if he deliberately receives, preserves or disposes of another`s personal property, knowing that it has been stolen, or because he thinks it was probably stolen, unless the property is received, preserved or disposed of with the intention of restoring it.” 18 Pa. Ann. .
5. This provision states: “A person commits an attempt if, with the intent to commit a particular crime, he commits any act which constitutes an essential step in committing that crime.” 18 Pa. Ann. . If the facts and circumstances . it is clear that no mercenary was committed, that there was no ill intent in the plaintiff`s mind, that she did not steal the few sheets of paper, and that she took it because she may have mistakenly thought she had the right to do so. Merkle alleges that prosecutors violated their constitutional rights by prosecuting and prosecuting, while Superintendent Brown and Director Thomas knew that she had committed no crime.9 Although the charge was laid against Merkle and the actual prosecution by Detective Hahn was conducted by both Hahn and the Chief of Police. , Hahn and the Chief of Police stated that the police had not laid charges and had continued to prosecute.
( 1) unless the victim had requested it and (2) she believed that she had requested it and (2) she believed that she had requested it. That`s a likely reason.