In Canton v. Harris, what must be demonstrated for a municipality to be found liable?

In Canton v. Harris, the standard for holding a municipality liable for the actions of its employees hinges on the concept of deliberate indifference to constitutional rights. This means that a plaintiff must show that the municipality had prior knowledge of a significant risk posed by its policies or lack of training and that it failed to act to address those risks.

The case established that it is not enough to simply demonstrate that a constitutional injury occurred; there must be a clear connection between the municipality's failure and the violation of rights. This implies that the municipality had to be aware that its actions (or inaction) could lead to constitutional violations and that they chose to ignore that risk.

Demonstrating deliberate indifference often involves showing that the municipality had a pattern of behavior or a notable absence of proper training or guidelines that a reasonable entity would recognize could result in a violation of individuals' rights. This standard underscores the importance of accountability at the municipal level in safeguarding constitutional protections.