If there’s one subset of the American public on whom corrupt police officers might want to go easy re: civil rights violations, it would probably be civil rights lawyers. Unfortunately, some overzealous Brooklyn cops didn’t get the memo. In 2008, Sgt. Steven Talvy tackled a man in the course of an arrest and, after shackling the now-subdued, peaceful, and compliant man, kicked him right in the face. This excessive force was witnessed by Michael and Evelyn Warren, the aforementioned civil rights lawyers, who then approached Talvy and informed him that he was being pretty brutal as an officer of the law, suggesting that he take the suspect to the precinct instead of, say, beating him to within an inch of his life. After weighing this constructive criticism for a moment, Talvy flew into a rage, punching them both repeatedly in the face and arresting them for “disorderly conduct”.
Tag Archives: fourth amendment
The Lesser-Known UC Davis Settlement
The news in the past couple of days has been awash with the announcement of the California Supreme Court task force’s report on the infamous UC Davis pepper spraying incident. The report had been delayed by lawsuits citing privacy and safety concerns for the police officers involved, but was finally release yesterday after a settlement allowed its publication sans said officers names. The Chicago Tribune offers a good summary of the 190-page report, but I’ll do you one better: the pepper spray attack was a joint effort between UC Davis’s moronic decision making and overzealous policemen.
While this was happening, though, a smaller settlement was announced that seems to have slipped through the cracks of mainstream news.
Police Misconduct Costs Beloit $265,000
Beloit, Wisconsin will have to pay $265,000 to a teenager who was illegally strip-searched in public by a police officer. Conner Poff was sitting in his car with some friends when the police received an anonymous tip alleging “drug activity”. Officer Kerry Daugherty approached the car, asked Poff to step out, and patted him down. Up to this point, Daugherty followed standard and necessary procedure. However, the policeman detected a bulge in the teenagers pants in the region of his crotch and, apparently not being too current with his studies of anatomy, asked the boy what that mysterious bulge could be. Poff replied that it was in fact his genitals, at which point the incredulous officer told the teenager to “show him”. When Poff complied, he was slammed against the car’s back windshield so hard that the windshield shattered and he suffered a mild concussion. In the course of the scuffle, Daugherty “discovered” a small bag of marijuana in the boy’s underwear. The police officer’s defense for his violent and unjustifiable strip search? He wanted the 16-year-old to show him the marijuana, which was clearly too small to detect in plain sight, and “not his genitals”. Well Mr. Daugherty, if you didn’t want to ogle the kid’s junk, you probably shouldn’t have asked to ogle the kid’s junk.
Poff filed suit shortly thereafter, alleging that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. Instead of going in front of a jury, which I can only assume would decide in Poff’s favor, the city agreed to a $265,000 settlement. Daugherty was not disciplined. So, the one disadvantage of the settlement system once again comes to light: the victims of injustice get some money, but the perpetrators are not punished and can say they’ve done nothing wrong. However, Milwaukee County is undertaking an investigation in the strip search practices of its police departments thanks to some of Daugherty’s comments, which suggested that his actions were part of the department’s standard modus operandi.
The ultimate moral to take away from this story, then, is to remember to tighten your belt when dealing with police in Wisconsin.
$6.2 Million Settlement for Arrested Protestors
Last week, the City of Chicago agreed to settle with the group of Iraq War protesters who were unjustly arrested in 2003 to the tune of $6.2 million. The Chicago Tribune reports that an appellate court decided last year that the 800 citizens were detained or arrested without warrant. Since then, the city and the protesters have been in arbitration to settle the case outside of the court system. Though the settlement still has to be approved by the city council, it is likely less expensive than continuing to litigate.
The decision marks a stern victory for the First Amendment as well as the Fourth, which protects against unlawful search and seizure. In the wake of the appellate decision, the City of Chicago has changed its tactics against protesters, as seen in the recent Occupy protests. Now, the police apparently give the protesters ample time to leave before they are arrested. The question for the police and the protesters alike is now, “Is that enough to guarantee the first amendment right to assemble?”