This is simply dumbfounding. Maybe one of the dumbest cop stories I have ever seen.
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/10/arrested_referees_police_clash.html (http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/10/arrested_referees_police_clash.html)
There are a lot of other stories out on this, including discussion on some officiating boards. But the basic story is this:
Cop gets job to provide security for high school football game. This is very typical.
Cop has son playing in game, for the visiting school.
Cop invites his friends to hang out on the sidelines with him to watch the game, inside the restraining fence.
Friends get down on the field along the sideline where they are not supposed to be, interfere with chain crew.
Official on that side has problems because there are all these people where they are not supposed to be - but no worries, there is a police officer RIGHT THERE, so we can fix this...
Official asks police officer to remove spectators who are not allowed to be there from the sideline.
Officer tells official to pay attention to the game, and let him handle the crowd.
Officials boggles at his response. What. The. Fuck?
Official is not happy about this response, tells officer that everyone needs to be away from the sideline and off the field, behind the fence.
Officer again tells official to pay attention to the game, and quit worrying about the sideline. Officer actually tells official to "shut up" and "you don't have the authority to tell anyone to move anywhere"
Official calls head official (referee) over.
Referee asks officer to remove spectators.
Officer tells referee to go back to the game, and if he says "one more word, I am cufffing".
Referee tells officer he is going to home team game management, and the spectators and now the officer as well are going to be removed from the playing field.
OFFICER ARRESTS BOTH OF THEM FOR "Intimidating a public official", and they are both taken to jail and booked. They are both released the next morning on bail.
Much drama ensues, and eventually the mayor and new police chief (of course) eventually drop all the charges and issue an apology.
It should really be a criminal offense to abuse one's authority like that. Giving one citizen legitimate control over another citizen should come with great responsibility, and merely having that authority removed if you're caught abusing it is not enough of a responsibility.
Quote from: DGuller on October 29, 2013, 10:11:18 AM
It should really be a criminal offense to abuse one's authority like that. Giving one citizen legitimate control over another citizen should come with great responsibility, and merely having that authority removed if you're caught abusing it is not enough of a responsibility.
It's actually kind of ironic. After the cop arrested them, he called the DA to find out what he could charge them with. DA apparently told him he had nothing. Cop decided to charge the officials under the law that covers someone attempting to intimidate a police officer unlawfully - like trying to threaten to get one fired because you are a city council member, or something like that.
But what we really have here is the opposite - a police officer threatening a civilian with illegal arrest if they don't act in the manner the officer insists.
What a shame - that officer is ruining the sterling reputation of the Louisiana justice system. :(
His kid must be pretty embarrassed.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 29, 2013, 11:14:45 AM
His kid must be pretty embarrassed.
Hopefully the police force is embarrassed as well.
If they feel they can afford the lawsuit then why not.
So it's obviously a completely ridiculous action by the cop, but really - this happened in small town rural Louisiana. I'm really not expecting top-not police work from the Covington Police Department (Covington LA - population 8,765).
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2013, 11:40:56 AM
So it's obviously a completely ridiculous action by the cop, but really - this happened in small town rural Louisiana. I'm really not expecting top-not police work from the Covington Police Department (Covington LA - population 8,765).
One might expect a police officer to know the difference between being a cop and being hired as a security guard for a school game.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2013, 11:40:56 AM
So it's obviously a completely ridiculous action by the cop, but really - this happened in small town rural Louisiana. I'm really not expecting top-not police work from the Covington Police Department (Covington LA - population 8,765).
I don't think not arresting officials because tehy tell your friends they cannot be on the field is an unreasonable bar to expect even out of rural town police officers.
And it isn't really rural anyway, it is the New Orleans metro area.
Who won the game?
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2013, 11:45:31 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2013, 11:40:56 AM
So it's obviously a completely ridiculous action by the cop, but really - this happened in small town rural Louisiana. I'm really not expecting top-not police work from the Covington Police Department (Covington LA - population 8,765).
I don't think not arresting officials because tehy tell your friends they cannot be on the field is an unreasonable bar to expect even out of rural town police officers.
And it isn't really rural anyway, it is the New Orleans metro area.
No, obviously that is not unreasonable to expect. But LA is notorious for poor policing.
And I looked it up before commenting - Covington is on the other side of Lake Ponchatrain from NO - 30-40 mi away as the crow flies, much longer driving.
Wow. That's some pretty stupid shit. If that were to happen on TV, I wouldn't believe it.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2013, 11:49:09 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2013, 11:45:31 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2013, 11:40:56 AM
So it's obviously a completely ridiculous action by the cop, but really - this happened in small town rural Louisiana. I'm really not expecting top-not police work from the Covington Police Department (Covington LA - population 8,765).
I don't think not arresting officials because tehy tell your friends they cannot be on the field is an unreasonable bar to expect even out of rural town police officers.
And it isn't really rural anyway, it is the New Orleans metro area.
No, obviously that is not unreasonable to expect. But LA is notorious for poor policing.
And I looked it up before commenting - Covington is on the other side of Lake Ponchatrain from NO - 30-40 mi away as the crow flies, much longer driving.
So? It is still part of the New Orleans metro area, and most certainly NOT rural.
And it is not that much further driving there is a bridge that goes straight across the lake from NO to Mandeville (one of the teams involved)/Convington.
Finally, you can even look up the definition of the NOMA, and it includes the parish (St. Taminy) that includes Convington.
Your internet schooling is now complete.
Well, cops are not notorious for their smarts and are notorious for their egos, so none of this surprises me. Just as I am sure that the city won't be surprised when they get sued for false imprisonment. But I bet the cop keeps his job, because it is hard to find people dumb and egotistical enough to replace fired cops.
And he was a lieutenant, too. LOL
Yup, charges dropped, city gets sued and pays, cop goes on to nightstick darkies until his pension kicks in.
Quote from: DGuller on October 29, 2013, 10:11:18 AM
It should really be a criminal offense to abuse one's authority like that. Giving one citizen legitimate control over another citizen should come with great responsibility, and merely having that authority removed if you're caught abusing it is not enough of a responsibility.
It's a necessary evil, Football games need officials or there would just be chaos on the field. :(
Quote from: grumbler on October 29, 2013, 11:58:41 AM
Well, cops are not notorious for their smarts and are notorious for their egos, so none of this surprises me. Just as I am sure that the city won't be surprised when they get sued for false imprisonment. But I bet the cop keeps his job, because it is hard to find people dumb and egotistical enough to replace fired cops.
Nah. Cop makes (is ordered to) a grovelling apology. Police benevolent association makes a nice donation to the high school football team. Matter gets swept under the rug because you don't want to distract from high school football.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 29, 2013, 12:01:30 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 29, 2013, 10:11:18 AM
It should really be a criminal offense to abuse one's authority like that. Giving one citizen legitimate control over another citizen should come with great responsibility, and merely having that authority removed if you're caught abusing it is not enough of a responsibility.
It's a necessary evil, Football games need officials or there would just be chaos on the field. :(
OK.
That is actually pretty damn funny.
Back to ignoring Raz.
Not entirely sure if Berkut realized that was a joke.
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 29, 2013, 12:02:41 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 29, 2013, 11:47:26 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 29, 2013, 11:45:52 AM
Who won the game?
The law.
But justice loses.
[BB] Does.. not.. compute... *bzzt* gaol always corr-corr-correct *bzzt* Machiavellian... *bzzt* *croink* Daisy, Daisy... *kaboom* [/BB]
Quote from: Razgovory on October 29, 2013, 12:07:04 PM
Not entirely sure if Berkut realized that was a joke.
Of course I do - that is why I said it was pretty damn funny.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2013, 12:03:58 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 29, 2013, 11:58:41 AM
Well, cops are not notorious for their smarts and are notorious for their egos, so none of this surprises me. Just as I am sure that the city won't be surprised when they get sued for false imprisonment. But I bet the cop keeps his job, because it is hard to find people dumb and egotistical enough to replace fired cops.
Nah. Cop makes (is ordered to) a grovelling apology. Police benevolent association makes a nice donation to the high school football team. Matter gets swept under the rug because you don't want to distract from high school football.
And meanwhile tow guys doing their job have arrest records and mugshots.
I would sue.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2013, 12:03:58 PM
Nah. Cop makes (is ordered to) a grovelling apology. Police benevolent association makes a nice donation to the high school football team. Matter gets swept under the rug because you don't want to distract from high school football.
Nah. The refs don't work for the football team, so don't give a shit about PBA donations to it. Despite pleas from the DA to sweep matters under the rug, the referees go for the lawsuit (and why wouldn't they? They aren't even local, necessarily).
The best part about this? Apparently, the cop wasn't there for crowd control, he was just watching the game. And he is the city's internal affairs investigator! :lol:
The only thing worse than a cop you rent is a cop you don't.
Quote from: grumbler on October 29, 2013, 12:09:57 PM
The best part about this? Apparently, the cop wasn't there for crowd control, he was just watching the game. And he is the city's internal affairs investigator! :lol:
The only thing worse than a cop you rent is a cop you don't.
They get dumber the farther up the food chain they go. Honestly. But you knew that.
Yeah. This cop has made them unemployable. They need to sue, and sue big.
I don't have time to read up on this, can someone explain to me:
The cop was working security for the game or not? Was he in uniform? Was he also on the field instead of behind the fence?
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2013, 12:08:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2013, 12:03:58 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 29, 2013, 11:58:41 AM
Well, cops are not notorious for their smarts and are notorious for their egos, so none of this surprises me. Just as I am sure that the city won't be surprised when they get sued for false imprisonment. But I bet the cop keeps his job, because it is hard to find people dumb and egotistical enough to replace fired cops.
Nah. Cop makes (is ordered to) a grovelling apology. Police benevolent association makes a nice donation to the high school football team. Matter gets swept under the rug because you don't want to distract from high school football.
And meanwhile tow guys doing their job have arrest records and mugshots.
I would sue.
I don't know. Don't you think that causing a scene by suing is likely to make you be seen as a rabble rouser, and less likely to get good reffing jobs?
While arrest records don't go away, there are arrest records, and there are arrest records. Sounds like these two guys were arrested, but not even charged (or if charged, charges very quickly withdrawn). Mugshots and fingerprints can be expunged.
Grumbles fairly points out the refs don't work for the team. Fair point. Donation still gets made, and these refs get promised a nice tryout next season for some low-ranking college games in return for not suing.
And berk - yes somehow I managed to miss the big friggin bridge right down the middle of the lake. :frusty:
The arrest record alone would suffice to make them almost unemployable in the United States.
These guys are long time high school officials, who are apparently pretty well respected (they've both worked state championship games).
This probably won't really hurt their officiating careers in any case - it is an extreme enough situation that if anything will likely get them more games since ADs are likely to think next year "Hey, that is that guy who got arrested! That was total bullshit, I am going to give him a game or two...".
But who knows really.
Prior to 9/11 I used to get on the field for Bengals away games & just hang out to watch the game. Nobody ever said anything to me. I used to bring as many as three people along with me-- told them just act like you belong there & nothing will happen. Nowadays if you're on the sideline & not performing a specific function related to the game or team, you'll be asked to leave, regardless of your credentials.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2013, 12:25:11 PM
I don't know. Don't you think that causing a scene by suing is likely to make you be seen as a rabble rouser, and less likely to get good reffing jobs?
Why would suing for this outrageous conduct be causing a scene?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2013, 12:45:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2013, 12:25:11 PM
I don't know. Don't you think that causing a scene by suing is likely to make you be seen as a rabble rouser, and less likely to get good reffing jobs?
Why would suing for this outrageous conduct be causing a scene?
Lawyers don't think twice about suing. But football is an old boys club, and old boys don't go suing each other.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2013, 12:52:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2013, 12:45:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2013, 12:25:11 PM
I don't know. Don't you think that causing a scene by suing is likely to make you be seen as a rabble rouser, and less likely to get good reffing jobs?
Why would suing for this outrageous conduct be causing a scene?
Lawyers don't think twice about suing.
:huh:
Not sure why you think that either.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2013, 12:25:11 PM
And berk - yes somehow I managed to miss the big friggin bridge right down the middle of the lake. :frusty:
It happens to the best of us. :(
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F3%2F36%2FTed_Kennedy%252C_official_photo_portrait_crop.jpg%2F185px-Ted_Kennedy%252C_official_photo_portrait_crop.jpg&hash=e0805bdd86b21419d077412553e0fb5ff834b54a)
:XD:
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2013, 12:40:02 PM
These guys are long time high school officials, who are apparently pretty well respected (they've both worked state championship games).
This probably won't really hurt their officiating careers in any case - it is an extreme enough situation that if anything will likely get them more games since ADs are likely to think next year "Hey, that is that guy who got arrested! That was total bullshit, I am going to give him a game or two...".
But who knows really.
I'm sure that their officiating jobs will be fine. I'm more concerned about their day jobs. Although if these guys are old enough, it might not matter.
Quote from: Neil on October 29, 2013, 02:07:21 PM
I'm sure that their officiating jobs will be fine. I'm more concerned about their day jobs.
If BB was their employer they would be screwed either way.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2013, 02:10:56 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 29, 2013, 02:07:21 PM
I'm sure that their officiating jobs will be fine. I'm more concerned about their day jobs.
If BB was their employer they would be screwed either way.
BB is a public servant.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2013, 12:52:13 PM
Lawyers don't think twice about suing. But football is an old boys club, and old boys don't go suing each other.
The guy being sued is a city employee. I don't think he counts as an "old boy," especially considering he was supporting the visiting team.
Quote from: grumbler on October 29, 2013, 02:23:50 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2013, 12:52:13 PM
Lawyers don't think twice about suing. But football is an old boys club, and old boys don't go suing each other.
The guy being sued is a city employee. I don't think he counts as an "old boy," especially considering he was supporting the visiting team.
He's a lieutenant in a small town police force. In that context, sure he is.
Quote from: DGuller on October 29, 2013, 01:19:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2013, 12:25:11 PM
And berk - yes somehow I managed to miss the big friggin bridge right down the middle of the lake. :frusty:
It happens to the best of us. :(
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F3%2F36%2FTed_Kennedy%252C_official_photo_portrait_crop.jpg%2F185px-Ted_Kennedy%252C_official_photo_portrait_crop.jpg&hash=e0805bdd86b21419d077412553e0fb5ff834b54a)
Fucked up, yo.
So BB, let me get this straight, if one or both of these refs walked into your office your legal advice to them would be "don't sue because some out of control cop who was hired as a security guard is part of an old boys football network and people like him will think less of you for pursuing your legal rights"
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2013, 12:25:11 PM
Grumbles fairly points out the refs don't work for the team. Fair point. Donation still gets made, and these refs get promised a nice tryout next season for some low-ranking college games in return for not suing.
What on earth makes you think that the local city government has any authority whatsoever over who gets to officiate NCAA Div III or NAIA games?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2013, 04:51:12 PM
So BB, let me get this straight, if one or both of these refs walked into your office your legal advice to them would be "don't sue because some out of control cop who was hired as a security guard is part of an old boys football network and people like him will think less of you for pursuing your legal rights"
No, what I expect is either the ref never comes to my office, or if he does I get a nice phone call from another lawyer inquiring what steps can be taken to make sure this doesn't end up in court.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2013, 02:31:40 PM
He's a lieutenant in a small town police force. In that context, sure he is.
Maybe Louisiana is more like Canada than small-town Virginia and thus you are more knowledgeable about the Old Boy Network there than I, but I am not sure of any of the things you are sure of. For instance, in Virginia, the length of time one lived here, not the police rank one has achieved, would determine whether or not you were an Old Boy.
If this incident happened in small-town Virginia, the city would already be negotiating with the victims, looking for a settlement to head off a lawsuit. The PBA wouldn't be involved.
It is unclear to me why the guys should say no to that much money. Seems someone has been watching too much Mississippi Burning and similar.
Quote from: grumbler on October 29, 2013, 05:13:19 PM
If this incident happened in small-town Virginia, the city would already be negotiating with the victims, looking for a settlement to head off a lawsuit. The PBA wouldn't be involved.
That is exactly what would be happening in small town BC. BB spent his formative years in Manitoba and so much of what he says about societal norms must be assessed with that in mind.
Quote from: grumbler on October 29, 2013, 05:13:19 PM
If this incident happened in small-town Virginia, the city would already be negotiating with the victims, looking for a settlement to head off a lawsuit. The PBA wouldn't be involved.
Any town (or company) that employs the preemptive negotiation strategy you describe is going to lose a lot of money. I've never heard of it.
I can tell you from personal experience that it is common for companies and cities to investigate accidents, mishaps, etc. that create a potential for liability, but I've never heard of companies or towns preemptively offer to settle a lawsuit in the absence of even a demand. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but it is an odd concept to me. If that would ever happen, I think that would happen only in the most unusual of circumstances (i.e. a catastrophic injury with clear liability) or perhaps in situations involving insurance coverage.
There is such a concept in Homeowners insurance. If someone gets injured on your property, the homeowner's policy has a coverage that pays a relatively modest amount for medical bills to the injured party. No deductible is applied, and that claim is not counted against the homeowner in any way. The idea is that paying a little money with no hassle now is worth potentially preventing an expensive liability claim in the future.
Quote from: stjaba on October 29, 2013, 06:00:42 PM
Any town (or company) that employs the preemptive negotiation strategy you describe is going to lose a lot of money. I've never heard of it.
I can tell you from personal experience that it is common for companies and cities to investigate accidents, mishaps, etc. that create a potential for liability, but I've never heard of companies or towns preemptively offer to settle a lawsuit in the absence of even a demand. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but it is an odd concept to me. If that would ever happen, I think that would happen only in the most unusual of circumstances (i.e. a catastrophic injury with clear liability) or perhaps in situations involving insurance coverage.
I didn't have the advantage of your personal experience that these particular two guys didn't resent spending the night in jail and are not seeking compensation. Given what you have revealed, I agree that the city would be foolish to give away money to people who don't want it.
In Virginia, however, i suspect that these guys would not be happy to have spent a night in jail because a cop grossly exceeded his authority, and they would be demanding compensation, and the towns would be looking to head off a lawsuit that they would most certainly lose.
Quote from: grumbler on October 29, 2013, 06:44:44 PM
I didn't have the advantage of your personal experience that these particular two guys didn't resent spending the night in jail and are not seeking compensation. Given what you have revealed, I agree that the city would be foolish to give away money to people who don't want it.
In Virginia, however, i suspect that these guys would not be happy to have spent a night in jail because a cop grossly exceeded his authority, and they would be demanding compensation, and the towns would be looking to head off a lawsuit that they would most certainly lose.
Actually you are completely wrong. In Virginia, municipalities are not liable for the intentional torts (i.e. false arrest) committed by its employees under sovereign immunity. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2193881014227563961&q=640+F.Supp.2d+688&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
That's basically true under federal law also. So, if this happened in Richmond, the city would be off the hook. Practically speaking, the town might pay for the officer's defense and settle the suit on his behalf, but that is no guarantee.
In any event, the concept of making a settlement offer in the absence of a demand is bizarre to me. It is especially odd to me in the context of police misconduct litigation, where the law is heavily slanted in favor of defendants.
And even assuming the officials made a demand, the more common strategy would be to wait until a lawsuit is filed first and go from there. There are so many hurdles a plaintiff has to overcome in police misconduct litigation that it would be foolhardy to do it any other way in most cases.
QuoteThere is such a concept in Homeowners insurance. If someone gets injured on your property, the homeowner's policy has a coverage that pays a relatively modest amount for medical bills to the injured party. No deductible is applied, and that claim is not counted against the homeowner in any way.
I believe this is called "Medpay." It is not uncommon to find that in all sorts of insurance coverage from what I understand. Basically the insurer will pay medical bills for claimants. The limits on these policies are like $5,000. I believe that Medpay coverage is generally separate from liability insurance. I have heard of coverage disputes where medpay pays medical bills, but an insurer denies coverage to an insured.
Quote from: stjaba on October 29, 2013, 08:28:13 PM
Actually you are completely wrong. In Virginia, municipalities are not liable for the intentional torts (i.e. false arrest) committed by its employees under sovereign immunity. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2193881014227563961&q=640+F.Supp.2d+688&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
Actually, you need to read your sources. Your cite doesn't say what you claim it does. What it says is that
QuoteWhere there is no evidence that the municipal agent "is responsible for any alleged constitutional violation ... or that [a plaintiff] suffered any injury as the result of the execution of any governmental policy or custom," dismissal is proper.
The city is liable if the policies or customs of the police department allowed the behavior of this lieutenant. We don't know if that is the case here.
QuoteIn any event, the concept of making a settlement offer in the absence of a demand is bizarre to me. It is especially odd to me in the context of police misconduct litigation, where the law is heavily slanted in favor of defendants.
I didn't have your personal knowledge that there was no demand. If there is no demand, then there would be no settlement.
QuoteAnd even assuming the officials made a demand, the more common strategy would be to wait until a lawsuit is filed first and go from there. There are so many hurdles a plaintiff has to overcome in police misconduct litigation that it would be foolhardy to do it any other way in most cases.
While this might be true in general, this was not a typical police misconduct case. It happened in front of a large crowd, and the officer involved hadn't the faintest fig leaf of an excuse for the arrest and jailing of the football officials. The press excoriations and costs of mounting an obviously doomed defense would seem to mitigate in favor of heading lawsuits off at the pass. If your personal knowledge that these officials were not demanding any compensation were not so persuasive, a bystander might be excused for thinking that the city and the lieutenant would want to avoid this kind of bad press.
Quote from: grumbler on October 30, 2013, 06:59:39 AM
Actually, you need to read your sources. Your cite doesn't say what you claim it does. What it says is that QuoteWhere there is no evidence that the municipal agent "is responsible for any alleged constitutional violation ... or that [a plaintiff] suffered any injury as the result of the execution of any governmental policy or custom," dismissal is proper.
The city is liable if the policies or customs of the police department allowed the behavior of this lieutenant. We don't know if that is the case here.
In police misconduct litigation there is a big distinction between individual liability (i.e. the individual officer) and municipal liability under federal law.
To show that that an individual officer is liable, not only does a plaintiff have to show that there was a constitutional violation, but also that the law violated by the defendant officer was "clearly established." This is known as qualified immunity. To pierce qualified immunity, the plaintiff normally has to find a prior, binding case with similar facts as his case. That can be difficult, which is one of the big hurdles in police misconduct litigation.
With respect to municipal liability, like the case says, a city can be liable if it has an unconstitutional custom or policy. However that is very difficult to show, and the facts unlikely support that. If Covington's official policy was that officers could arrest without probable cause, that would constitute an unconstitutional policy. However, if Covington is like most cities, its SOP state that officers may only arrest with probable cause. And case law is clear that normally one unconstitutional incident is insufficient to an unconstitutional policy.
A municipality can also be liable if it has an unofficial custom of permitting constitutional violations. Again, that is hard to prove. The plaintiffs would have to show a string of similar incidents to win on that. A few random or isolated similar incidents would be insufficient.
As hard as it is to win a case against an individual officer, it is probably 10 times harder to win against a municipality. It is well recognized among lawyers who routinely defend officers and municipalities that the playing field is heavily balanced in their favor. For instance, a speaker at a recent police misconduct litigation conference commented that "if you aren't winning 95% of your cases, you should probably move to a different field." While there is a hint of exaggeration to that, it's basically true.
Since there are no facts on the ground which support municipal liability under federal law, coupled with the fact it is extraordinarily difficult to prove municipal liability, I am comfortable saying that it is highly unlikely that Covington itself would be found liable.
Quote
I didn't have your personal knowledge that there was no demand. If there is no demand, then there would be no settlement.
You "made up" or assumed the demand. I have no personal knowledge one way or another. But even assuming a demand, I doubt most people would settle without any kind of fight.
Quote
While this might be true in general, this was not a typical police misconduct case. It happened in front of a large crowd, and the officer involved hadn't the faintest fig leaf of an excuse for the arrest and jailing of the football officials. The press excoriations and costs of mounting an obviously doomed defense would seem to mitigate in favor of heading lawsuits off at the pass. If your personal knowledge that these officials were not demanding any compensation were not so persuasive, a bystander might be excused for thinking that the city and the lieutenant would want to avoid this kind of bad press.
I have no personal knowledge regarding the facts of this case. It is your assumption that a demand has been made. I do have personal knowledge regarding how cities and companies respond to accidents, mishaps, and civil rights violations.
Second, the officer is possibly protected by qualified immunity, so he would have a defense to a lawsuit, unlike what you claim.
Third, while pre-suit settlement occurs on a regular basis, it is unusual in the context of police misconduct litigation, even in "egregious" cases. This is because of the uneven playing field between plaintiffs and defendants. If a town employs the early and easy settlement strategy, it is just setting itself up for more lawsuits. The fact that a town settles frequently could even be used as evidence of an unconstitutional custom that would be helpful for future litigants, so for that reason alone I doubt a city would normally do what you suggest.
Quote from: stjaba on October 29, 2013, 06:00:42 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 29, 2013, 05:13:19 PM
If this incident happened in small-town Virginia, the city would already be negotiating with the victims, looking for a settlement to head off a lawsuit. The PBA wouldn't be involved.
Any town (or company) that employs the preemptive negotiation strategy you describe is going to lose a lot of money. I've never heard of it.
I can tell you from personal experience that it is common for companies and cities to investigate accidents, mishaps, etc. that create a potential for liability, but I've never heard of companies or towns preemptively offer to settle a lawsuit in the absence of even a demand.
Then I suspect your personal experience does not include situations in which the investigation discloses that liability is a certainty and therefore the best course of action is to offer something to make the matter go away with a minimum of cost - both in terms of the money paid and the amount of legal fees incurred. In circumstances where liability is certain it is highly likely that waiting for formal court proceedings to be commenced will increase the cost of settlement. There is a reason why insurance companies try to get people to sign off on their claims early on in the process ;)
Even in cases where liability is not a certainty it can still make a lot of sense to act proactively to deal with prospective claimants. Those circumstances vary from case to case.
However, if your client doesnt want to act proactively I suppose that is a strategy that could be followed. Not an entirely wise strategy in every case but better for your billings.
Quote from: stjaba on October 30, 2013, 09:32:30 AM
Third, while pre-suit settlement occurs on a regular basis, it is unusual in the context of police misconduct litigation, even in "egregious" cases. This is because of the uneven playing field between plaintiffs and defendants. If a town employs the early and easy settlement strategy, it is just setting itself up for more lawsuits. The fact that a town settles frequently could even be used as evidence of an unconstitutional custom that would be helpful for future litigants, so for that reason alone I doubt a city would normally do what you suggest.
This isnt exactly the run of the mill police misconduct case is it?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2013, 09:54:30 AM
Even in cases where liability is not a certainty it can still make a lot of sense to act proactively to deal with prospective claimants. Those circumstances vary from case to case.
Which is my point here. For instance, in a car accident case, where liability is clear, and damages exceed coverage limits, it would be silly to contest the claim. In that circumstance, it makes sense to be proactive. Really, any time insurance limits are less than damages, a proactive strategy makes senses.
However, in circumstances where plaintiffs have inherent disadvantages, being so proactive isn't logical. For instance, in medical malpractice cases, in Florida there is actually a required pre-suit discovery and mediation process. It is my understanding that despite the required pre-suit process, those cases are never resolved pre-suit. The reason is that medical malpractice cases are hard to prove and expensive to litigate. So, defendants have an inherent advantage. That is even more the case in police misconduct litigation.
Look at it from the other side. What was the damages, assuming the cop makes a full and fair apology?
Aside from heaping on punitive damages, which is always an exciting prospect in the US I understand ( :D ), there would be reputational losses and some for humiliation and inconvenience for spending a night in the hoosegow. The big one would be whether the refs could prove reputational losses, but given the obviously egregious nature of the cop's conduct and the absurdity of the charges, that may be difficult.
Aside from punitive-type awards, which I admit are the wild card, the case may not be worth big bucks, which should encourage an early settlement as the costs of litigating it would not be worth it where there is an open apology in place.
Fucking languish lawyers.
Quote from: katmai on October 30, 2013, 10:06:05 AM
Fucking languish lawyers.
No thank you, none of them are my type.
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 30, 2013, 10:08:27 AM
Quote from: katmai on October 30, 2013, 10:06:05 AM
Fucking languish lawyers.
No thank you, none of them are my type.
DADT isn't in effect no more Lusti, no need to be hiding!
I think the question of disciplinary action against the officers is probably much more interesting than any potential lawsuit. I think Malthus is basically correct - actual damages seem rather minor.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2013, 09:56:39 AM
Quote from: stjaba on October 30, 2013, 09:32:30 AM
Third, while pre-suit settlement occurs on a regular basis, it is unusual in the context of police misconduct litigation, even in "egregious" cases. This is because of the uneven playing field between plaintiffs and defendants. If a town employs the early and easy settlement strategy, it is just setting itself up for more lawsuits. The fact that a town settles frequently could even be used as evidence of an unconstitutional custom that would be helpful for future litigants, so for that reason alone I doubt a city would normally do what you suggest.
This isnt exactly the run of the mill police misconduct case is it?
Sure it is. In fact, in the scheme of things, it is somewhat minor. There are no injuries. The refs were in and out of jail in a matter of hours. The charges were dropped immediately. What are the damages going to be? Probably $20,000 or $30,000 at most? Possibly as low as $5,000.
There are plenty of police misconduct cases where plaintiffs are beat up, with life long injuries, or are killed, in circumstances that are clearly unjustified too. And yet law enforcement routinely gets away with it.
For instance, read the following facts from a police misconduct case:
Quote
In the early hours of May 8, 2005, Melanie Williams, then seven and a half months pregnant with her first child, noticed that she had begun to bleed vaginally. Concerned, she began to drive herself to St. Vincent's Medical Center. En route, Williams ran a red light. Less than one mile from the hospital, Williams pulled over when signaled to stop by Deputies Sirmons and Mills. After Sirmons approached her car, Williams explained to him that she was pregnant, bleeding, and on her way to the hospital. Sirmons appeared unconcerned and requested Williams' drivers' license and proof of insurance and inquired whether she owned the car she was driving. After receiving the requested documents, Sirmons returned to his patrol car to verify her identity and issue a traffic citation. Williams then fled from the stop in her vehicle. Mills and Sirmons pursued Williams with their lights and sirens on.
Williams drove directly to the hospital's emergency vehicle bay with Sirmons and Mills close behind. As Williams exited her car, Sirmons grabbed her arm and told her that she was going to jail. Williams pulled free and ran towards the emergency room yelling, "Help! I'm pregnant and bleeding." Williams stopped at two locked doors in the emergency room, still calling out for help. Sirmons caught up to Williams and wrapped his arms around her, causing them both to fall to the floor. Sirmons dislocated his shoulder in the fall. Sirmons got up, and Mills took Sirmons' place, kneeling atop the prone Williams while he unhurriedly handcuffed her. All the while, Williams was struggling to stand up and pleading with the deputy to get off her stomach because she was pregnant. The deputies then arrested Williams.
Mills took Williams to the patrol car where he allowed her to be examined by a nurse from the hospital. Thereafter, Williams was admitted to the hospital and found to be bleeding vaginally and in premature labor. Her physicians successfully staved off the premature labor and Williams was released from the hospital ten days later.
In that case, the court ultimately concluded that the force applied was de minimis, and that the officers were justified in applying force because probable cause existed for the arrest.
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2013, 10:04:48 AM
Aside from punitive-type awards, which I admit are the wild card, the case may not be worth big bucks, which should encourage an early settlement as the costs of litigating it would not be worth it where there is an open apology in place.
Agreed, but conversely I think that actually incentives not settling the case. If the local lawyers know that the city doesn't easily settle peanut cases, they aren't going to take them in the first place. Or at least the good lawyers will pass them up.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the city shouldn't settle the case, but I see no reason to do it so early in the process.
Also, in the context of municipal liability, often times the lawyer defending the case is a city employee, so the relative costs of defending the case are low.
Quote from: stjaba on October 30, 2013, 10:03:29 AM
Which is my point here. For instance, in a car accident case, where liability is clear, and damages exceed coverage limits, it would be silly to contest the claim. In that circumstance, it makes sense to be proactive. Really, any time insurance limits are less than damages, a proactive strategy makes senses.
Is that kosher? :unsure: My impression is that insurer is obligated to defend as if they're liable for the whole thing, or they would not be acting in good faith (since the policyholder will be stuck for the difference while not even controlling the legal defense). Of course, that could just be the idealistic theory that diverges greatly from actual practice.
Quote from: katmai on October 30, 2013, 10:06:05 AM
Fucking languish lawyers.
As a general statement, absolutely. But not, we hope, by you. :)
Quote from: DGuller on October 30, 2013, 10:54:36 AM
Quote from: stjaba on October 30, 2013, 10:03:29 AM
Which is my point here. For instance, in a car accident case, where liability is clear, and damages exceed coverage limits, it would be silly to contest the claim. In that circumstance, it makes sense to be proactive. Really, any time insurance limits are less than damages, a proactive strategy makes senses.
Is that kosher? :unsure: My impression is that insurer is obligated to defend as if they're liable for the whole thing, or they would not be acting in good faith (since the policyholder will be stuck for the difference while not even controlling the legal defense). Of course, that could just be the idealistic theory that diverges greatly from actual practice.
Insurers are obligated to defend as if they are liable for the whole thing. If the insured is a normal person (i.e not a company), plaintiff's attorneys realize that it makes no sense to try and demand anything beyond the normal policy limits. So typically, in a catastrophic case, the plaintiff's attorney will demand the policy limits right off the bat. It is in both the insurer and the insured's best interest for the insurer to pay the policy limits. For the insurer, if they don't pay the policy limits, they may get hit with a bad faith claim. For the insured, they could get hit with an excess judgment. In those circumstances (insured hit with an excess judgment), the plaintiff's attorney would then probably settle his case with the insured, with the insured paying nothing, but then assigning his bad faith claim against his insurer to the plaintiff. The plaintiff could then go after the insurer for the total amount of damages, not just the policy limits, plus potentially seek punitive damages and attorney's fees.
Quote from: stjaba on October 30, 2013, 10:03:29 AM
However, in circumstances where plaintiffs have inherent disadvantages, being so proactive isn't logical.
Agreed, but this is such a blatant case of an abuse of police power that anyone who has potential liability would be well advised to act proactively. Not only becuase of the potential legal liability but also because of the reputation risk of defending this conduct.
Quote from: stjaba on October 30, 2013, 10:09:50 AM
Sure it is. In fact, in the scheme of things, it is somewhat minor. There are no injuries. The refs were in and out of jail in a matter of hours. The charges were dropped immediately. What are the damages going to be? Probably $20,000 or $30,000 at most? Possibly as low as $5,000.
There are plenty of police misconduct cases where plaintiffs are beat up, with life long injuries, or are killed, in circumstances that are clearly unjustified too. And yet law enforcement routinely gets away with it.
This is a case of abuse of power not a case of assault. It is hard to think of a case that is more blatant than this. If cases of such abuse are common in your jurisdiction then you have some huge issues.
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2013, 10:04:48 AM
Aside from heaping on punitive damages,
Even in Canada that is where most of the damage would be awarded by the court for this kind of abuse of power. Even in Canada the award would be significant and well worth going through the litigation process.
Quote from: stjaba on October 30, 2013, 10:16:22 AM
Agreed, but conversely I think that actually incentives not settling the case. If the local lawyers know that the city doesn't easily settle peanut cases, they aren't going to take them in the first place. Or at least the good lawyers will pass them up.
That theory holds for actions that are bound to happen on a fairly regular basis. How often do you think cops, acting as security guards, are going to arrest members of the officiating crew at a school game?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2013, 11:11:18 AM
That theory holds for actions that are bound to happen on a fairly regular basis. How often do you think cops, acting as security guards, are going to arrest members of the officiating crew at a school game?
It is common for law enforcement officers to get sued for actions they take while doing extra time/off-duty work. In Tampa they got sued all the time for incidents arising out of extra time work at nightclubs, for instance.
Obviously if you narrow the specific circumstances to football games, that's going to be rare.
But generally speaking, to summarize my stance, police misconduct cases are uniquely suited to not being settled early. First, the law is heavily in the favor of the officer and the city. The officer may be protected by qualified immunity, and it is extremely unlikely the city itself is liable. Second, often times a city employee defends the case, so the expenses associated with defending the case are low. Third, settling the case may be could be detrimental to the city in future police misconduct cases because that could be evidence relevant to municipal (as opposed to individual) liability.
Edited: And 4th, maintaining an aggressive posture makes sense because law enforcement work inherently poses a high very risk of injuries, wrongful arrests, and other mishaps to arrestees. Accordingly, to ward off future suits (whether baseless or otherwise) it is important to maintain the reputation of not settling, at least not early on.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2013, 11:04:14 AM
Not only becuase of the potential legal liability but also because of the reputation risk of defending this conduct.
What reputation risk is there in defending this conduct?
Do cops have qualified protection for work performed off duty?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2013, 11:09:21 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2013, 10:04:48 AM
Aside from heaping on punitive damages,
Even in Canada that is where most of the damage would be awarded by the court for this kind of abuse of power. Even in Canada the award would be significant and well worth going through the litigation process.
The quantum may or may not be sufficient to make it worthwhile. Compared to US punitive damages claims, Canadian ones are still very low, even when awarded.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2013, 11:09:21 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2013, 10:04:48 AM
Aside from heaping on punitive damages,
Even in Canada that is where most of the damage would be awarded by the court for this kind of abuse of power. Even in Canada the award would be significant and well worth going through the litigation process.
I very much doubt that to be the case.
Quote from: stjaba on October 30, 2013, 11:26:35 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2013, 11:04:14 AM
Not only becuase of the potential legal liability but also because of the reputation risk of defending this conduct.
What reputation risk is there in defending this conduct?
Assuming there is no defence that could separate the employer from this conduct such as acting outside the scope of employment then the reputation risk is defending conduct that to any reasonable person would be outrageous and high handed. To the extent an any entity cares about its public reputation this is probably not a battle they want to fight. These are very bad facts. Nobody is going to think what this cop did was in anyway justifiable.
QuoteEdited: And 4th, maintaining an aggressive posture makes sense because law enforcement work inherently poses a high very risk of injuries, wrongful arrests, and other mishaps to arrestees. Accordingly, to ward off future suits (whether baseless or otherwise) it is important to maintain the reputation of not settling, at least not early on.
What risk is there of future suits brought by officials who were wrongfully detained? :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2013, 11:35:19 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2013, 11:09:21 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2013, 10:04:48 AM
Aside from heaping on punitive damages,
Even in Canada that is where most of the damage would be awarded by the court for this kind of abuse of power. Even in Canada the award would be significant and well worth going through the litigation process.
The quantum may or may not be sufficient to make it worthwhile. Compared to US punitive damages claims, Canadian ones are still very low, even when awarded.
Agreed. But that does not mean that aggravated and punative damages in Canada are peanuts. But more to the point it is a very good reason for an entity in the US to act proactively in a case with these kinds of facts.
Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2013, 11:54:08 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2013, 11:09:21 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2013, 10:04:48 AM
Aside from heaping on punitive damages,
Even in Canada that is where most of the damage would be awarded by the court for this kind of abuse of power. Even in Canada the award would be significant and well worth going through the litigation process.
I very much doubt that to be the case.
Oh ya. When is the last time you defended a claim for punative and aggravated damages? ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2013, 12:12:09 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2013, 11:35:19 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2013, 11:09:21 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2013, 10:04:48 AM
Aside from heaping on punitive damages,
Even in Canada that is where most of the damage would be awarded by the court for this kind of abuse of power. Even in Canada the award would be significant and well worth going through the litigation process.
The quantum may or may not be sufficient to make it worthwhile. Compared to US punitive damages claims, Canadian ones are still very low, even when awarded.
Agreed. But that does not mean that aggravated and punative damages in Canada are peanuts. But more to the point it is a very good reason for an entity in the US to act proactively in a case with these kinds of facts.
Heh, get this thing in front of a US jury, and anything can happen. :lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2013, 12:09:54 PM
Assuming there is no defence that could separate the employer from this conduct such as acting outside the scope of employment then the reputation risk is defending conduct that to any reasonable person would be outrageous and high handed. To the extent an any entity cares about its public reputation this is probably not a battle they want to fight. These are very bad facts. Nobody is going to think what this cop did was in anyway justifiable.
I would think these factors would matter possibly for a corporation, but not for a town. No one is going to move out of Covington, LA because the city fights some lawsuit. People aren't going to stop paying taxes because of a lawsuit. The considerations for a city are different than they are for a company.
Quote
QuoteEdited: And 4th, maintaining an aggressive posture makes sense because law enforcement work inherently poses a high very risk of injuries, wrongful arrests, and other mishaps to arrestees. Accordingly, to ward off future suits (whether baseless or otherwise) it is important to maintain the reputation of not settling, at least not early on.
What risk is there of future suits brought by officials who were wrongfully detained? :hmm:
There is a risk of future lawsuits in general. The specific facts on the ground don't really matter that much as far as generating a reputation for settling early/easily or not. If the City settles some high publicity lawsuit preemptively that will certainly encourage more lawsuits, even if the facts are relatively different in other cases. At the end of the day, it's a false arrest case, and I guarantee you the officers of Covington have arrested plenty of people on BS charges like they have with the officials.
This is up there with Why the North doesn't vote Tory (http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,10617.0.html) by Sheilbh as the most boring thread in all of Languish.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 30, 2013, 05:35:55 PM
This is up there with Why the North doesn't vote Tory (http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,10617.0.html) by Sheilbh as the most boring thread in all of Languish.
Injustice bores you? Disenfranchisement of Northern England bores you?
Quote from: citizen k on October 30, 2013, 05:39:35 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 30, 2013, 05:35:55 PM
This is up there with Why the North doesn't vote Tory (http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,10617.0.html) by Sheilbh as the most boring thread in all of Languish.
Injustice bores you? Disenfranchisement of Northern England bores you?
No, and yes.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 30, 2013, 05:35:55 PM
This is up there with Why the North doesn't vote Tory (http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,10617.0.html) by Sheilbh as the most boring thread in all of Languish.
Clearly you missed mongers' poll on "What is Your Favorite Shrubbery."
I would've thought all threads were equally boring to Otto as he doesn't actually read them. :hmm:
It was an interesting piece of news, but it was unfortunate that the thread got bogged down in a bunch of lawyers trying to out-lie each other.
Quote from: Neil on October 30, 2013, 07:23:48 PM
It was an interesting piece of news, but it was unfortunate that the thread got bogged down in a bunch of lawyers trying to out-lie each other.
If that doesn't sum up the state of hte legal system what does?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 30, 2013, 07:16:04 PM
I would've thought all threads were equally boring to Otto as he doesn't actually read them. :hmm:
Since when has one needed to read a thread to post in it? :hmm:
Well if you skip over Grumbler and the lawyers arguing about stuff, this thread's not that bad.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 30, 2013, 08:07:28 PM
Well if you skip over Grumbler and the lawyers arguing about stuff, this thread's not that bad.
That would seem to just be Berkut's opening post, which I admit was entertaining.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 30, 2013, 08:07:57 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 30, 2013, 08:07:28 PM
Well if you skip over Grumbler and the lawyers arguing about stuff, this thread's not that bad.
That would seem to just be Berkut's opening post, which I admit was entertaining.
Well, there'd also be my post (Reply #46) wherein I ask BB a question that he still hasn't addressed.