Idaho Criminal Defense Blog : Idaho Criminal Lawyer & Attorney : Chuck Peterson Law Firm : Civil Rights, Trial, Felonies, Assaut, DUI : Boise, Idaho Falls, Pocatello, Idaho

You may recall that I recently wrote about an incident involving a Boise man who was Tasered against Boise Police Department policy and the City Ombudsman's decision that the officers had violated their policy and his rights.  He planned to sue for damages while local officials could not find a criminal charge to use against the officer.  Today we have a reminder of just how much danger a Taser may pose to each of us if not used "correctly."

The Charlotte Observer reports that city will pay the family of a 17-year-old who died after being shocked by a Taser, $625,000.  The paper reports that the officer kept pulling the Taser trigger for 37 seconds - while the boy collapsed and ultimately died.  

Power - again the power we give the police requires them to act reasonably, so says the Constitution.  

And most officers do act reasonably. But when they do not - a victim has a cause of action for the damages caused by the officer's actions.  I know that Tasers are supposed to be safe when properly used, but the safety of the device depends on the person using it.  You know - sort of that "Tasers (guns) don't kill people, people kill people."  Let's hope this never happens in Boise - and that the officers we count on for protection will act reasonably.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 An Idaho Statesman article reports on the findings of the Boise Police Ombudsman that officers used excessive force when they used their Taser on a suspect's "buttocks."  OK - so another poor fool got the Taser and now the Ombudsman wants us all to understand that even he can identify misconduct when he sees it - or hears it.  That would be screaming and pleading and the smell of "ham" frying.  Here's what the Ombudsman reportedly found:

"The suspect said that he was hit three times with a Taser after he was already handcuffed and face-down on the floor. Murphy's investigation found evidence that the suspect was hit twice with the Taser — once in the back before he was handcuffed and once in the buttocks after he was cuffed."

Of course the notion of excessive force usually involves injuries, sometimes deadly injuries. I posted about this before and provided a video of what it looks like to get the Taser treatment.  Check that one out to see what you think about this "non-lethal" force.  

Here's what I cannot figure out - what happened to those cops who could take control of a suspect without Tasing or beating or whining about how tough their job is?  Why do they get all that training on the use of reasonable force, only to pass a personal "tasing" so that they can then deploy the Taser instead of reason or reasonable force. The officers I meet in court seem fit enough to handle almost any drunken fool WITHOUT the use of Tasers, so why go for the simple solution?  

Then again, nobody died.  And give the officers a break on the "inappropriate language" beef.  The constitution does not guarantee civility, it simply outlaws cruelty.  These officers put up with a lot of grief from suspects, and an occasional verbal shot across the bow won't likely ruin anyone who is in that "under arrest" situation.  Of greater concern by far is the notion of young men (mostly) being treated unreasonably when arrested. 

If you have been subjected to excessive force during an arrest - join in here - share your story by commenting on this post.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

 I happened to check out a blog entry tonight in which the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Buckley v. Haddock was reviewed.  In Buckley, Court ruled that an officer who used his taser on a handcuffed man arrested for a misdemeanor had NOT used excessive force.  The cop had ordered the man to get up off the ground, and threatened his with the taser.  Imagine this - the man who was on the ground crying, did not get up after being tased the first time, so the officer tased him again. And again. And again. Just like when your four year-old won't stop hitting his sister, so you have to hit him.  Right? Not excessively, of course.  Just a little whack to stop him from whacking his sister. Apparently that's the way they do it in the 11th Circuit.  I always wonder if the Judges who have sworn an oath to uphold "justice" would rule like this if it was one of their own family or friends on the ground twitching from the use of the "non-excessive force."

In ruling that the deputy did not use excessive force, the Court stated:

"Needless to say, officers acting alone may not always use any and all force necessary to complete an arrest without assistance. If Deputy Rackard had used more severe techniques (beaten [the motorist's] head with a club or shot him, for example), this case would be a different case. Here, the record shows that Deputy Rackard only used moderate, non-lethal force; and he did so only after reasoning with [the motorist], then after trying to lift [the motorist], and finally after repeatedly warning [the motorist]-a warning given before each use of the taser-that a taser would be used. In short, Deputy Rackard gave [the motorist] ample warning and opportunity to cease resisting before the deputy resorted gradually to more forceful measures. Even then, [the motorist's] injury was not great; and the deputy holstered his taser after using it briefly three times."

Here's an idea - let the drunk sit on the ground and call for assistance.  Too easy?  OK, just gently tase him then.

A friend of mine who is a preacher says that someday there will be justice, but until that day, there's "just us."  Check out the video and see what you think.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

I get at least three calls a week from folks who think their civil rights have been violated and want me to take their case. "Cause" might be a better description than case for the most part. So why is it so tough to get an attorney to take a civil rights case? Here are my Top 4 Reasons Most Civil Rights Cases Can't Find A Lawyer.

Reason number one - your civil rights have not been violated. The average person has a very broad view of his or her civil rights, much broader than provided for under the law. That view is almost always broader than the jury's view! In general, you have a civil rights case if someone, acting under color of state law deprives you of a personal right protected and guaranteed by the United States Constitution or a federal law. The most common personal rights include freedom of speech, the right to vote, due process of law, equal protection, and unlawful discrimination. Civil rights laws apply to persons acting under color of state law, and even that part is tricky. Sometimes a city or agency can be a "person" but not always.  Civil rights cases often involve police brutality claims, and claims against employers who retaliate against a public employee for some reason - like the cop in Chicago who won $900,000 against his former boss for retaliating against him when he tried to investigate police corruption.  One of my Trial Lawyers College Classmates represents firefighters who have suffered from sexual harassment and retaliation.  These types of cases have civil rights components.

Reason number two - the government has immunity from much of the stuff that otherwise would be a civil rights case. Immunity comes in two varieties - absolute and qualified. So, you cannot sue the judge who treated you poorly during a trial. He or she likely has immunity that protects him or her from a lawsuit. The same is generally true with law enforcement officers, unless you can show that they acted with reckless indifference to you.  Their immunity is likely not absolute - but qualified immunity may also keep you from collecting, if it applies.

Reason number three - your damages may not be enough to merit filing a lawsuit. OK - let's say that the cops locked you up for a day and that it was otherwise a violation of your civil rights (assume - due process). What money damages did you incur? Often when I ask this question the answer is "I lost a day's wages."  Civil rights cases, like every other civil case, requires a weighing of damages and liability against the time required to prevail. If the damages are not high enough to attract an attorney - good for you! You may have gotten a bad deal, but the harm did not likely ruin you. 

Reason number four - these cases are incredibly complex and very tough to win. Jurors want to trust the folks we end up suing in these cases.  So winning a judgment requires a lot of time and commitment by the trial lawyer. Years ago I tried a case in which my client (a deputy) had not been given a hearing before he was fired. An inmate under his supervision had killed himself, and the city blamed my guy because he had not apparently checked on the deceased every 15 minutes. I spent so much time on the case that by the day of trial I literally wished I had not taken it. I burned thousands of hours before we even got to pick the jury! In the end we won the case - but the difficulty of the case weighed on me for years. It is easier to run a race on a sunny day than in the mud and rain! And I felt wet and muddy after that "victory." On an hourly basis, my ultimate recovery worked out to about $10 an hour for all the time I spent.

So there they are - My Top 4 Reasons Most Civil Rights Cases Can't Find A Lawyer. Of course having said that - if you really HAVE a civil rights case maybe we can take your case. Got a question about your civil rights? Send us a comment or call us to talk about your situation.  We fight to protect your civil rights here in Boise, Idaho or wherever you may be.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks