benchmarks.wiki

benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU-Pro / 1107 / A state trooper was convicted in federal court in 2008 of taking bribes. He was…

Problem

Answer published by the source. Consult the official source to check your work against its answer.

question

A state trooper was convicted in federal court in 2008 of taking bribes. He was sentenced to probation. He had served as a state trooper since 1978, and in 1998, he became fully qualified for his pension upon retirement. In 2006, the trooper retired and immediately started receiving monthly state pension checks. In 2009, the governor of the state signed into law a statute, which provided in part:"Section 8. Any member of the state law enforcement staff. . . who is convicted of. . . briberyshall not be entitled to receive any retirement or other benefit or payment of any kind from the stateSuch conviction shall be considered a breach of the staff member's employment contractSection 12. The provisions of this Act shall be retroactive to December 31, 1975. Section 14. This Act shall take effect immediately. "Following the enactment of the statute, the state trooper received a letter from the state which stated that pursuant to the statute, the state is immediately discontinuing pension benefit payments to you on account of your 2008 bribery conviction. "The trooper contacted an attorney, who challenged the discontinuance of benefits on the grounds that the new law was unconstitutional. Assume that the state's highest court holds the statute constitutional. The trooper might still be able to eventually have his pension reinstated if

category

law

options

  1. he can prove that the bribe was unrelated to his duties as a state trooper.
  2. he can show that he was convicted before the effective date of thestatute.
  3. he can prove that the statute is being applied selectively and discriminately.
  4. he can show that the discontinuance of benefits is a form of double jeopardy.
  5. he receives a presidential pardon for his bribery offense.
  6. he can demonstrate that the statute unfairly targets retired law enforcement officials.
  7. he can demonstrate that his conviction was overturned on appeal.
  8. he exercises his constitutional right to discretionary review in the U. S. Supreme Court.
  9. he can show that the statute violates the dormant commerce clause.

src

ori_mmlu-professional_law

Discussion

Discussion

No discussion posts on this page yet. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

See answer Answer published by the source

Artifacts

Code, notes and reproducible work shared by participants. Files are served from a separate origin.

No artifacts on this page yet. Share reproducible code or notes in a contribution. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

Source and history

upstream_id / Original problem ID
1107
task_id
0b7f25c2-d754-5a71-899b-c2375e41d1f1
task_key
default--test--1107
task_revision_id
1
config / split
default / test

Official source

initial import