Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Who were those masked men?
I'm a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an internet civil liberties law firm. A person contacted us about a search of his adult nightclub in Florida, in which the officers wore masks, hid their identities and shut off the club's internal surveillance camera before executing the search. My recollection is that this is unlawful, especially in the absence of court permission. Does the NLG have someone in FL with whom this gentleman can consult?
Monday, June 23, 2008
Man Shot While Being Mentally Ill
I wanted to share with everyone a recent decision denying Summary Judgment and the settlement in a failure to train case for which I posted a request for jury instructions a month or so ago. The case involved the shooting of a young ( 23) mentally ill (paranoid Schizophrenic) Ohio resident, "N".
He was shot when four Sheriff’s deputies went to pick him up on a probate court detention order to take him to a hospital after the family had called for help because he had stopped taking his medication (he was responding well to the meds). The deputies reported "N" was shot when he attempted to stab one of the deputies. The shooting occurred sixty seconds after the deputies approached "N". The deputies admitted that until one of them ran toward "N", maced him and tried to grab him, Nasir did not strike at them or move toward them and that all four were at a safe distance behind protective cover with guns drawn screaming at him until the deputy ran toward "N". No one else was anywhere in the vicinity except "N" and the deputies. Our expert testified that this was a case study in how NOT to approach someone suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and that the deputies should have been trained not to rush and to call for a CIT or other special assistance if the deputies were not trained themselves.
We only sued the Sheriff. There had been no special or continuing training related to dealing with the mentally ill even for the unit handling probate detention orders. Nor did the Sheriff establish a Crisis Intervention Team. We developed evidence showing the Sherriff and his command staff had been to programs about the importance of CITs and special training for dealing with the mentally ill. Claims were made under section 1983 and the ADA. The judge addressed the 1983 claim and was about to rule on the ADA claim when the case settled. Settlement included continuing jurisdiction of the court to enforce new initial training requirements, continuing training requirements, implementation of a Crisis Intervention Team, creation of a data base recording all background and interactions related to detentions/arrests of mentally ill individuals involving the warrant squad or CIT, and payment of $500,000.
He was shot when four Sheriff’s deputies went to pick him up on a probate court detention order to take him to a hospital after the family had called for help because he had stopped taking his medication (he was responding well to the meds). The deputies reported "N" was shot when he attempted to stab one of the deputies. The shooting occurred sixty seconds after the deputies approached "N". The deputies admitted that until one of them ran toward "N", maced him and tried to grab him, Nasir did not strike at them or move toward them and that all four were at a safe distance behind protective cover with guns drawn screaming at him until the deputy ran toward "N". No one else was anywhere in the vicinity except "N" and the deputies. Our expert testified that this was a case study in how NOT to approach someone suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and that the deputies should have been trained not to rush and to call for a CIT or other special assistance if the deputies were not trained themselves.
We only sued the Sheriff. There had been no special or continuing training related to dealing with the mentally ill even for the unit handling probate detention orders. Nor did the Sheriff establish a Crisis Intervention Team. We developed evidence showing the Sherriff and his command staff had been to programs about the importance of CITs and special training for dealing with the mentally ill. Claims were made under section 1983 and the ADA. The judge addressed the 1983 claim and was about to rule on the ADA claim when the case settled. Settlement included continuing jurisdiction of the court to enforce new initial training requirements, continuing training requirements, implementation of a Crisis Intervention Team, creation of a data base recording all background and interactions related to detentions/arrests of mentally ill individuals involving the warrant squad or CIT, and payment of $500,000.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Always Nice to See Reversals!
A police officer was trying to help an injured person and got beaten up by his own department! He lost the case at the trial level, but the Appeals Court reversed the decision.
Johnson v. Dist. of Columbia, No. 06-7136, 06-7180
In a suit brought under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for use of excessive force in an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, as well as common law claims of police brutality, assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress when a police officer was mistaken for a criminal when he unwittingly landed in the middle of a drug bust, summary judgment in favor of defendant is reversed as to section 1983 claims and affirmed as to the common law claims where: 1) defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity against the section 1983 claims because of conflicting deposition testimony, which gave rise to genuine issues of fact material to both the section 1983 claim and the qualified immunity defense; and 2) the Police and Firefighters Retirement and Disability Act barred plaintiff's common law claims. Read more...
Join Findlaw to read this case. There is no charge and you will receive no spam.
A police officer was trying to help an injured person and got beaten up by his own department! He lost the case at the trial level, but the Appeals Court reversed the decision.
Johnson v. Dist. of Columbia, No. 06-7136, 06-7180
In a suit brought under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for use of excessive force in an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, as well as common law claims of police brutality, assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress when a police officer was mistaken for a criminal when he unwittingly landed in the middle of a drug bust, summary judgment in favor of defendant is reversed as to section 1983 claims and affirmed as to the common law claims where: 1) defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity against the section 1983 claims because of conflicting deposition testimony, which gave rise to genuine issues of fact material to both the section 1983 claim and the qualified immunity defense; and 2) the Police and Firefighters Retirement and Disability Act barred plaintiff's common law claims. Read more...
Join Findlaw to read this case. There is no charge and you will receive no spam.
A police officer was trying to help an injured person and got beaten up by his own department! He lost the case at the trial level, but the Appeals Court reversed the decision.
Friday, June 20, 2008
No Crying In Court!
Sounds like Ohio prosecutors have a lot of time on their hands.
No crying in court
Butler 's Piper says defense lawyers' tears can sway jury
BY SHEILA MCLAUGHLIN | SMCLAUGHLIN@ENQUIRER.COM
HAMILTON - Quit your crying and begging!
That's the theme of an offbeat motion that Butler County prosecutors filed this week trying to keep defense lawyers from getting emotional in death-penalty cases.
The request was filed less than two weeks after defense lawyer Greg Howard shed a few tears and begged jurors to spare Harvey Johnson's life for killing of Kiva Gazaway of Liberty Township.
It might have worked. Johnson got life in prison instead.
Prosecutors go toe-to-toe with Howard again in August in the case of James O'Hara, who is accused in the July 2007 fatal stabbing of Stanley Lawson, 38, of Middletown .
"Crying brings out almost a Pavlovian response in some people," Prosecutor Robin Piper said, denying that the motion is meant to single out Howard.
It doesn't accuse Howard specifically of crying on cue. But it mentions that defense lawyers are known to do that - even trained to do it - as part of their strategy.
"Our motion is more about requiring an attorney to maintain composure during closing arguments and during the trial," Piper said. "Prosecutors are held to that standard. Defense lawyers should also be held to a similar standard."
Judge Andrew Nastoff will listen to lawyers argue about it July 18 in Butler County Common Pleas Court .
Howard denies being able to make his tear ducts flow in front of a jury.
"It's an emotional thing. You've invested a lot of time and effort in these cases, and you're trying to save your client's life, and occasionally it happens," he said.
To Howard, the prosecutor's motion is nothing more than a legal maneuver aimed at bettering their chances at sending O'Hara to death row.
"They want the death-penalty verdict so badly that they're doing whatever they can to try to get one," Howard said.
No crying in court
Butler 's Piper says defense lawyers' tears can sway jury
BY SHEILA MCLAUGHLIN | SMCLAUGHLIN@ENQUIRER.COM
HAMILTON - Quit your crying and begging!
That's the theme of an offbeat motion that Butler County prosecutors filed this week trying to keep defense lawyers from getting emotional in death-penalty cases.
The request was filed less than two weeks after defense lawyer Greg Howard shed a few tears and begged jurors to spare Harvey Johnson's life for killing of Kiva Gazaway of Liberty Township.
It might have worked. Johnson got life in prison instead.
Prosecutors go toe-to-toe with Howard again in August in the case of James O'Hara, who is accused in the July 2007 fatal stabbing of Stanley Lawson, 38, of Middletown .
"Crying brings out almost a Pavlovian response in some people," Prosecutor Robin Piper said, denying that the motion is meant to single out Howard.
It doesn't accuse Howard specifically of crying on cue. But it mentions that defense lawyers are known to do that - even trained to do it - as part of their strategy.
"Our motion is more about requiring an attorney to maintain composure during closing arguments and during the trial," Piper said. "Prosecutors are held to that standard. Defense lawyers should also be held to a similar standard."
Judge Andrew Nastoff will listen to lawyers argue about it July 18 in Butler County Common Pleas Court .
Howard denies being able to make his tear ducts flow in front of a jury.
"It's an emotional thing. You've invested a lot of time and effort in these cases, and you're trying to save your client's life, and occasionally it happens," he said.
To Howard, the prosecutor's motion is nothing more than a legal maneuver aimed at bettering their chances at sending O'Hara to death row.
"They want the death-penalty verdict so badly that they're doing whatever they can to try to get one," Howard said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)