By T.J. Wilham, Copyright © 2008 Albuquerque Journal
Marvin Gladstone is an 80-year-old retired attorney with gray hair and a heart condition. His 69-year-old wife, Patti, is a semiretired accountant and an amputee who uses a prosthetic leg to walk.
Earlier this summer, Marvin Gladstone was considered a "threat" by Albuquerque police. He was handcuffed, arrested, charged and put in the back of a squad car. In a separate altercation with police later that afternoon, his wife was handcuffed, arrested and carted off to jail.
During his arrest, Marvin Gladstone suffered a heart attack and had to be rushed to the hospital, his attorneys say.
Patti Gladstone was arrested at the hospital after police apparently thought she was trying to break her husband out of custody when she rolled him away from officers in a wheelchair — although she said she was just looking for a place to sit.
When police tried to book Patti Gladstone into jail, her blood pressure was so high that the medical staff at the Metropolitan Detention Center wouldn't take her.
The couple's alleged crimes? Assaulting an officer, refusing to obey an officer, disorderly conduct and cruelty to an animal.
While they await court dates on the various criminal charges, they are considering filing a lawsuit against the Albuquerque Police Department.
APD officials say the officer, Lena Deyapp, acted appropriately and did everything she could to avoid cuffing the Gladstones but was left with no option because they continually assaulted her.
"Mr. and Mrs. Gladstone felt they were above the law and could do whatever they pleased," police spokesman John Walsh said. "The last thing our officer wanted was to take them into custody, but they chose to escalate the situation, act the way they did and, quite frankly, they should have known better."
Dog in an SUV
The encounter occurred June 18 at a Foothills supermarket. According to attorney Mary Han, Patti Gladstone went inside to shop while Marvin Gladstone stayed in the couple's sport utility vehicle with the family dog, a large mixed breed.
After several minutes, the dog's water was running low, and Marvin Gladstone went into the store to get more, Han said. He left the windows cracked and shut off the engine.
How long the Gladstones left the dog unattended and how hot it was in the car are in dispute.
Han claims that it was still cool inside the vehicle; a city vet says that, based on outside temperatures and what is usually safe, he believes that the animal was in danger of dying. It was about 2 p.m and police dispatchers noted the temperature as 94 degrees.
After Marvin Gladstone left the vehicle, someone called 911 and reported that the dog was panting, in distress and that the windows were "slightly" cracked, police say.
Han said Gladstone was only gone about 10 minutes, but, according to dispatch reports, it took 19 minutes for an APD officer to get to the vehicle.
APD officials said the officer couldn't find the vehicle's owners, tried to have them paged inside the store and made contact with them 32 minutes after the 911 call — about 13 minutes after she arrived at the scene.
Han says the Gladstones' veterinarian will testify that they are "very responsible" pet owners.
"The dog was within minutes of being dead," said Craig J. Mabray, chief of veterinary services for the Albuquerque Animal Welfare Department, who didn't examine the pet, which was ultimately allowed to return with the Gladstones. He based his comments on a formula for how long animals can safely be in an enclosed area at a certain temperature. "This dog was in trouble."
The city has been cracking down on people who leave pets unattended in vehicles, and police have made such calls from citizens a top priority. Under city law, it's illegal to leave an animal or child in an enclosed vehicle for a period of time that could result in danger.
Patti Gladstone told police that they had been gone 10 minutes.
When the officer went back to her squad car to wait for animal control officers, Marvin Gladstone approached her and said, "How long is this going to take? We have stuff to do," according to APD reports.
Deyapp told him that animal control was on its way and to get back in his SUV. For "officer safety reasons," Deyapp walked him back to his vehicle, where his wife also told the officer that the couple had things to do, including a doctor's appointment. The dog remained in the car with the Gladstones with the air conditioning on.
Marvin Gladstone approached the officer again a short time later. This time, the conversation escalated.
Police order
Marvin Gladstone asked the officer, "Is there anything I can do to expedite the situation?" according to police reports.
Deyapp replied, "No sir, and I am giving you an order to stay inside your vehicle."
Police say Marvin Gladstone became irate, began to yell and told Deyapp that she was a disgrace to the police department. He was a few inches from her and pointed at her face.
Deyapp wrote in her report that she took a step back because she was in "immediate fear of battery."
Deyapp said Marvin Gladstone said, at one point, that he wanted to go to jail.
Police reports don't make it clear how long it took for an animal control officer to arrive. When the officer arrived, it was determined that the dog was OK. But the officer cited Patti Gladstone, who was driving the vehicle, for cruelty to an animal.
APD officials said city ordinance requires that dogs left unattended in a car must have an opening large enough for the dog to get its head out.
After the citation, police say Marvin Gladstone got out of his vehicle again, approached Deyapp in an "aggressive manner" and asked for her name and badge number.
Deyapp says she provided the information, then placed him under arrest for refusing to obey because he didn't stay inside his vehicle.
"Our officer was placed in a position where she had to take action because of his irresponsible acts," Walsh said.
While sitting cuffed in the back of a police car, Marvin Gladstone, who has had triple bypass surgery, started to have chest pains. An ambulance took him to the hospital, where he was treated for a heart attack, Han said. A doctor's note showed that he had suffered a mild heart attack.
Han said officers refused to let Gladstone take nitroglycerin tablets, which she said might have prevented the attack.
Patti Gladstone took the dog home and met her husband at the hospital. Three officers also showed up.
'Out of control'
While there, police say they told Patti Gladstone that her husband couldn't leave their custody.
A surveillance video of the emergency room waiting area shows her pushing her husband's wheelchair away from the group of officers. It appears she was looking for a seat.
The officers didn't appear to be concerned at first. Suddenly, all three approached her, forced her away from the wheelchair and rushed her outside.
Han says Patti Gladstone was thrown against a wall, cuffed and arrested for acting disorderly. She was taken to the county jail, where staff refused to book her.
According to Deyapp's report, Patti Gladstone was told that she couldn't move away from the officers, refused to return when ordered and insisted she needed to sit down.
When the officers grabbed the wheelchair, she shouted at them, "No, you will not." Police say she wouldn't let go of the wheelchair.
Marvin Gladstone wasn't booked but was given a summons to appear in court. He was treated and released several hours later. He has been charged with refusing to obey a lawful order and assault upon a peace officer.
Police also settled on giving Patti Gladstone a summons after jail staff refused to book her. She has been charged with refusing to obey an officer, cruelty to an animal and disorderly conduct.
"APD is out of control," Han said. "Imagine that this was your mom or your father. It's pretty outrageous, isn't it?
"One person is an artist, a grandmother of seven, and the other is a retired lawyer. These are people who believe in the system."
Showing posts with label Excessive Force. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Excessive Force. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
When Officers Go Too Far
By Joline Gutierrez Krueger, Journal Staff Writer
It was the second time in the dead of that cold autumn night that Angela Saiz woke her husband, Mark, because somebody was pounding on their door.
The first time, it was urgent knocking, but no one was there.
This time, it sounded like someone kicking in the front door, determined to break in.
Twice in the last three months, thieves had broken into the insurance office of Mark Saiz's father, which is adjacent to their home on Sarah NW. Maybe, they thought, the thieves had returned.
Maybe it was juvenile thugs roaming the North Valley.
Maybe it was worse.
Mark Saiz, clad in T-shirt and boxers, grabbed his 12-gauge shotgun from the closet. Through a window, he saw movement in the darkness outside, the black blur of intruders scurrying behind the garage.
He opened the door, fired a warning blast of birdshot into the sky and shouted for the intruders to go away.
"I was so scared, very scared," Angela Saiz says.
But what the Saizes say happened next that October 2006 night was scarier still.
For the next three hours, Mark Saiz says the intruders humiliated, intimidated and emasculated him. He contends he was handcuffed and forced to the ground, punched twice in the face while restrained. He was called a "vigilante son of a bitch" and other angry vulgarities. He was pulled barefoot across his graveled yard. His shoulder was dislocated.
Worst of all, Saiz, 49, says he was helpless to protect his family and property.
All the while, he had no idea what the intruders wanted.
Then Saiz, a gentle and proud man who had never incurred more than a traffic offense, was tossed into the Metropolitan Detention Center on four felony counts of aggravated assault against a peace officer.
Yup. The four intruders that surreal night were Bernalillo County sheriff's deputies.
This week in a federal courtroom in Albuquerque, Saiz and the deputies squared off in the latest legal battle over whether homeowners have the right to protect their domiciles even if it means pulling the trigger — and even if the invaders are law enforcement agents.
Saiz's federal lawsuit accuses three deputies (one deputy, Chris Romero, was dismissed from the case at the end of trial) of violating his civil rights by their use of unreasonable and excessive force.
The deputies, including the alleged potty-mouthed pugilist, are also accused of battery.
Saiz testified that the deputies had not identified themselves as law enforcement agents. There had been no squad cars visible, no lights or sirens.
Once he knew, however, Saiz says he complied with all their commands.
It didn't matter. He had already incurred the wrath normally reserved for cop killers, baby rapers and defense attorneys.
"It's not enough I have to be worried about the criminals out there, I have to be worried about being shot by you!" one deputy shouts in a recording from a deputy's belt tape.
Deputies David Priemazon and Jason Foster and then-trainee Matthew Ray blamed their agitated moods on their own fears that night.
"I was very angered, very upset and very scared," Priemazon, the deputy accused of punching Saiz, testified. "I was almost shot."
Priemazon, who cops to the vulgar diatribe, says he had seen the glint of Saiz's glasses in the dark house and the shotgun barrel aimed straight at Romero's head.
The deputies ran for cover, but Priemazon was trapped by the "fatal funnel" of a walled courtyard with no defensive cover. He swears the gunfire came so close to his right shoulder that he had initially believed he was hit.
But no small projectiles found in the birdshot slug — the same stuff Dick Cheney fired in the face of his hunting buddy — were recovered from the walls where Priemazon had cowered, as one might have expected had Saiz aimed at him and not the air.
Maybe that's why a grand jury refused to indict Saiz on the felony assault charges but merely for negligent use of a deadly weapon, a petty misdemeanor.
That charge evaporated, too, when the District Attorney's Office asked to dismiss the case "for the reason that after reviewing the evidence the state believes that it is not in the state's best interest to pursue the indicted charge."
Priemazon, now a violent crimes detective, denied the punches. Ray, so terrified that he considered quitting the force, denied dislocating Saiz's arm. Lt. Jason Katz, the deputies' supervisor that night, denied telling the Saiz family that what had happened had been one big misunderstanding.
You remember Katz, who two months before the Saiz incident was one of three deputies accused of plucking Al Unser Sr. from his vehicle and tossing him face-first into a patch of goatheads during another one of those big misunderstandings.
What happened at the Saiz home had not been a misunderstanding but a mistake from the start, launched as a welfare check on a possible domestic violence victim who had made a 911 call on a cell phone that abruptly ended.
The phone number had been traced to Sarah NW, but, oops, she didn't live there anymore.
On Thursday, after just 1 1/2 hours of deliberation, jurors sided with the deputies, apparently convinced that whatever brutality had been rained on the Saizes that night was part of the job.
No death, no foul, no money.
The job of a law enforcement officer is dangerous and tough, and we've attended too many funerals for too many men and woman killed in the line of duty to think otherwise.
But when justified caution gives way to the unbridled bravado of the badge, especially in the sanctity of our own homes, it harms not just the public but the image of those who truly protect and serve without provoking and savaging.
You can reach Joline at 823-3603 or jkrueger@abqjournal.com.
It was the second time in the dead of that cold autumn night that Angela Saiz woke her husband, Mark, because somebody was pounding on their door.
The first time, it was urgent knocking, but no one was there.
This time, it sounded like someone kicking in the front door, determined to break in.
Twice in the last three months, thieves had broken into the insurance office of Mark Saiz's father, which is adjacent to their home on Sarah NW. Maybe, they thought, the thieves had returned.
Maybe it was juvenile thugs roaming the North Valley.
Maybe it was worse.
Mark Saiz, clad in T-shirt and boxers, grabbed his 12-gauge shotgun from the closet. Through a window, he saw movement in the darkness outside, the black blur of intruders scurrying behind the garage.
He opened the door, fired a warning blast of birdshot into the sky and shouted for the intruders to go away.
"I was so scared, very scared," Angela Saiz says.
But what the Saizes say happened next that October 2006 night was scarier still.
For the next three hours, Mark Saiz says the intruders humiliated, intimidated and emasculated him. He contends he was handcuffed and forced to the ground, punched twice in the face while restrained. He was called a "vigilante son of a bitch" and other angry vulgarities. He was pulled barefoot across his graveled yard. His shoulder was dislocated.
Worst of all, Saiz, 49, says he was helpless to protect his family and property.
All the while, he had no idea what the intruders wanted.
Then Saiz, a gentle and proud man who had never incurred more than a traffic offense, was tossed into the Metropolitan Detention Center on four felony counts of aggravated assault against a peace officer.
Yup. The four intruders that surreal night were Bernalillo County sheriff's deputies.
This week in a federal courtroom in Albuquerque, Saiz and the deputies squared off in the latest legal battle over whether homeowners have the right to protect their domiciles even if it means pulling the trigger — and even if the invaders are law enforcement agents.
Saiz's federal lawsuit accuses three deputies (one deputy, Chris Romero, was dismissed from the case at the end of trial) of violating his civil rights by their use of unreasonable and excessive force.
The deputies, including the alleged potty-mouthed pugilist, are also accused of battery.
Saiz testified that the deputies had not identified themselves as law enforcement agents. There had been no squad cars visible, no lights or sirens.
Once he knew, however, Saiz says he complied with all their commands.
It didn't matter. He had already incurred the wrath normally reserved for cop killers, baby rapers and defense attorneys.
"It's not enough I have to be worried about the criminals out there, I have to be worried about being shot by you!" one deputy shouts in a recording from a deputy's belt tape.
Deputies David Priemazon and Jason Foster and then-trainee Matthew Ray blamed their agitated moods on their own fears that night.
"I was very angered, very upset and very scared," Priemazon, the deputy accused of punching Saiz, testified. "I was almost shot."
Priemazon, who cops to the vulgar diatribe, says he had seen the glint of Saiz's glasses in the dark house and the shotgun barrel aimed straight at Romero's head.
The deputies ran for cover, but Priemazon was trapped by the "fatal funnel" of a walled courtyard with no defensive cover. He swears the gunfire came so close to his right shoulder that he had initially believed he was hit.
But no small projectiles found in the birdshot slug — the same stuff Dick Cheney fired in the face of his hunting buddy — were recovered from the walls where Priemazon had cowered, as one might have expected had Saiz aimed at him and not the air.
Maybe that's why a grand jury refused to indict Saiz on the felony assault charges but merely for negligent use of a deadly weapon, a petty misdemeanor.
That charge evaporated, too, when the District Attorney's Office asked to dismiss the case "for the reason that after reviewing the evidence the state believes that it is not in the state's best interest to pursue the indicted charge."
Priemazon, now a violent crimes detective, denied the punches. Ray, so terrified that he considered quitting the force, denied dislocating Saiz's arm. Lt. Jason Katz, the deputies' supervisor that night, denied telling the Saiz family that what had happened had been one big misunderstanding.
You remember Katz, who two months before the Saiz incident was one of three deputies accused of plucking Al Unser Sr. from his vehicle and tossing him face-first into a patch of goatheads during another one of those big misunderstandings.
What happened at the Saiz home had not been a misunderstanding but a mistake from the start, launched as a welfare check on a possible domestic violence victim who had made a 911 call on a cell phone that abruptly ended.
The phone number had been traced to Sarah NW, but, oops, she didn't live there anymore.
On Thursday, after just 1 1/2 hours of deliberation, jurors sided with the deputies, apparently convinced that whatever brutality had been rained on the Saizes that night was part of the job.
No death, no foul, no money.
The job of a law enforcement officer is dangerous and tough, and we've attended too many funerals for too many men and woman killed in the line of duty to think otherwise.
But when justified caution gives way to the unbridled bravado of the badge, especially in the sanctity of our own homes, it harms not just the public but the image of those who truly protect and serve without provoking and savaging.
You can reach Joline at 823-3603 or jkrueger@abqjournal.com.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
APD officer spied on couple's naked doings, entered home, then assaulted them, lawsuit says
By Maggie Shepard, Albuquerque Tribune
Naked dancing. A dead dog. A police officer with an eye for detail and a can of Mace.
It's not the beginning to a great country song. It's the story laid out in a civil lawsuit filed in state District Court on Wednesday by Gary and Penny Schinagel against the Albuquerque Police Department and the city.
On Sept. 6, 2005, the Northeast Heights couple, married for more than 20 years, decided a bit of romance was the best way to celebrate their youngest child's departure for college.
Clothes came off. Music came on.
And soon, Albuquerque Police Officer Russell Moore was at their window looking in, responding, police say, to a call from a neighbor about loud music.
According to the lawsuit, a tape recorder on Moore's belt that records his actions indicated he stayed at the window for six minutes before making his way into their home.
Alarmed, the couple rushed to find their clothes. Gary Schinagel ended up in his wife's robe, confronting the officer, who had entered the home without a warrant and made his way to the kitchen, the lawsuit says.
Here, accounts of the bizarre night differ. The Schinagels say the officer took their fear and shock as aggression and sprayed Mace at them and their dog. The dog later died from complications, the lawsuit says.
The couple said they were handcuffed, still partially dressed, while they bled from being hit with a flashlight and were prevented from relieving their burning eyes.
The officer, according to police reports, said the Schinagels were aggressive and assaulted him, hurting his jaw. They were arrested on charges of battery on a police officer, which were later dismissed, according to court documents.
The lawsuit says the police officers who arrived later failed to help the family dog and left the home unlocked.
An Albuquerque TV station on Sept. 7, 2005, broadcast a report showing the couple's home near Tramway and Menaul boulevards Northeast and noting that the Schinagels weren't available for comment because they were out of town.
The home was burglarized early the next morning, the lawsuit says.
"It's hard to believe," said Ken Wagner, the Schinagel's attorney. "We have a right to privacy in our homes, and there is a right way and wrong way to enter."
Albuquerque police spokeswoman Trish Hoffman was not immediately able to determine if Moore or other officers involved in the incident had been administratively sanctioned.
Naked dancing. A dead dog. A police officer with an eye for detail and a can of Mace.
It's not the beginning to a great country song. It's the story laid out in a civil lawsuit filed in state District Court on Wednesday by Gary and Penny Schinagel against the Albuquerque Police Department and the city.
On Sept. 6, 2005, the Northeast Heights couple, married for more than 20 years, decided a bit of romance was the best way to celebrate their youngest child's departure for college.
Clothes came off. Music came on.
And soon, Albuquerque Police Officer Russell Moore was at their window looking in, responding, police say, to a call from a neighbor about loud music.
According to the lawsuit, a tape recorder on Moore's belt that records his actions indicated he stayed at the window for six minutes before making his way into their home.
Alarmed, the couple rushed to find their clothes. Gary Schinagel ended up in his wife's robe, confronting the officer, who had entered the home without a warrant and made his way to the kitchen, the lawsuit says.
Here, accounts of the bizarre night differ. The Schinagels say the officer took their fear and shock as aggression and sprayed Mace at them and their dog. The dog later died from complications, the lawsuit says.
The couple said they were handcuffed, still partially dressed, while they bled from being hit with a flashlight and were prevented from relieving their burning eyes.
The officer, according to police reports, said the Schinagels were aggressive and assaulted him, hurting his jaw. They were arrested on charges of battery on a police officer, which were later dismissed, according to court documents.
The lawsuit says the police officers who arrived later failed to help the family dog and left the home unlocked.
An Albuquerque TV station on Sept. 7, 2005, broadcast a report showing the couple's home near Tramway and Menaul boulevards Northeast and noting that the Schinagels weren't available for comment because they were out of town.
The home was burglarized early the next morning, the lawsuit says.
"It's hard to believe," said Ken Wagner, the Schinagel's attorney. "We have a right to privacy in our homes, and there is a right way and wrong way to enter."
Albuquerque police spokeswoman Trish Hoffman was not immediately able to determine if Moore or other officers involved in the incident had been administratively sanctioned.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
APD Loses Brutality Case
Saturday, November 18, 2006
By Debra Dominguez-Lund
Copyright © 2006 Albuquerque Journal; Journal Staff Writer
A formerly homeless man who suffered severe burns and lost part of his ear when he was arrested by three Albuquerque police officers four years ago was awarded about $300,000 by a federal jury Friday.
Despite the verdict in U.S. District Court, Jerome Hall, who suffered permanent disfiguration from the September 2002 incident, said he'll never feel he's gotten complete justice.
"They took my dignity away from me in public," said Hall, who says police officers unlawfully arrested him, used Tasers on him and beat him excessively after he was warned not to walk along Central east of Nob Hill. "They treated me like an animal because I was black and homeless— like I was less than nothing. It was a public lynching in modern times."
The jury found that Albuquerque police officers Tim Gonterman, Sean Higdon and David Hinson used "excessive force" when they arrested Hall in September 2002, said Hall's attorney, Louren Oliveros.
Kathryn Levy, the city attorney representing the police officers, couldn't be reached for comment.
However, City Attorney Robert White said the city accepts the jury's decision.
"The jury entered its verdict, and we accept its decision with regard to the amount (awarded to Hall)," White said. "And since that particular incident, APD has reviewed and changed its Taser policy."
Hall's attorneys claimed the officers had no lawful reason to arrest, assault or falsely imprison Hall, saying he was just walking along Central and complied with all officers' orders. City attorneys claimed in court documents that the officers acted in good faith, using reasonable police procedures and tactics.
City attorneys also maintained, according to court documents, that the officers had probable cause to arrest Hall, 42, for various crimes, including public nuisance, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and criminal trespassing.
Court documents say Gonterman stopped Hall because police had received complaints of narcotic sales by people on foot in the area, and that he observed Hall acting suspiciously.
Oliveros claimed in the suit that the three officers beat Hall, and that Gonterman applied his Taser "to Mr. Hall's body multiple times inflicting second and third-degree burns."
She said Hall lost part of his ear as a result of being burned.
Hall admits that he had been addicted to drugs but says he has since been through rehabilitation programs. He said he's going to use the money to help get his life back on track and help his four children.
"I want to re-establish my relationships with them and eventually go back to college in the fall," said Hall, a former medical technician and disabled U.S. Army veteran.
"I hope my story shows people redemption is possible for anyone," said Hall, who said his drug addiction led him to homelessness. "The beating made me feel like I was written off as a subhuman, like I had no rights, like I was less than an animal and worthless.
"But homeless or not, we have rights and a voice," Hall said. "And I feel those men should not be cops or even security guards because they pose a possible threat to anyone who's not like them."
APD spokesman John Walsh said that because the incident took place in 2002 under former APD Chief Gilbert Gallegos, he didn't know whether the officers ever faced any disciplinary action. All three still work for APD.
"I'd be more than happy to review it, though," Walsh said. "But as far as that chapter's concerned, it's closed now."
"The position of the city is that it felt strong that the actions of the police officers back then fell under the scoping guidelines of 2002 and the use-of-force model (for Tasers)," said Walsh, adding that the Police Department's policy regarding Tasers has since been made much more restrictive.
Oliveros, who represented Hall with her husband, Robert Gorence, applauded the jury's verdict.
"The defendants did their best to make Hall look as least human as possible," she said. "But the jury's verdict is a good sign society is starting to see through racial and class profiling, as well as the complete disregard these people are often treated with."
By Debra Dominguez-Lund
Copyright © 2006 Albuquerque Journal; Journal Staff Writer
A formerly homeless man who suffered severe burns and lost part of his ear when he was arrested by three Albuquerque police officers four years ago was awarded about $300,000 by a federal jury Friday.
Despite the verdict in U.S. District Court, Jerome Hall, who suffered permanent disfiguration from the September 2002 incident, said he'll never feel he's gotten complete justice.
"They took my dignity away from me in public," said Hall, who says police officers unlawfully arrested him, used Tasers on him and beat him excessively after he was warned not to walk along Central east of Nob Hill. "They treated me like an animal because I was black and homeless— like I was less than nothing. It was a public lynching in modern times."
The jury found that Albuquerque police officers Tim Gonterman, Sean Higdon and David Hinson used "excessive force" when they arrested Hall in September 2002, said Hall's attorney, Louren Oliveros.
Kathryn Levy, the city attorney representing the police officers, couldn't be reached for comment.
However, City Attorney Robert White said the city accepts the jury's decision.
"The jury entered its verdict, and we accept its decision with regard to the amount (awarded to Hall)," White said. "And since that particular incident, APD has reviewed and changed its Taser policy."
Hall's attorneys claimed the officers had no lawful reason to arrest, assault or falsely imprison Hall, saying he was just walking along Central and complied with all officers' orders. City attorneys claimed in court documents that the officers acted in good faith, using reasonable police procedures and tactics.
City attorneys also maintained, according to court documents, that the officers had probable cause to arrest Hall, 42, for various crimes, including public nuisance, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and criminal trespassing.
Court documents say Gonterman stopped Hall because police had received complaints of narcotic sales by people on foot in the area, and that he observed Hall acting suspiciously.
Oliveros claimed in the suit that the three officers beat Hall, and that Gonterman applied his Taser "to Mr. Hall's body multiple times inflicting second and third-degree burns."
She said Hall lost part of his ear as a result of being burned.
Hall admits that he had been addicted to drugs but says he has since been through rehabilitation programs. He said he's going to use the money to help get his life back on track and help his four children.
"I want to re-establish my relationships with them and eventually go back to college in the fall," said Hall, a former medical technician and disabled U.S. Army veteran.
"I hope my story shows people redemption is possible for anyone," said Hall, who said his drug addiction led him to homelessness. "The beating made me feel like I was written off as a subhuman, like I had no rights, like I was less than an animal and worthless.
"But homeless or not, we have rights and a voice," Hall said. "And I feel those men should not be cops or even security guards because they pose a possible threat to anyone who's not like them."
APD spokesman John Walsh said that because the incident took place in 2002 under former APD Chief Gilbert Gallegos, he didn't know whether the officers ever faced any disciplinary action. All three still work for APD.
"I'd be more than happy to review it, though," Walsh said. "But as far as that chapter's concerned, it's closed now."
"The position of the city is that it felt strong that the actions of the police officers back then fell under the scoping guidelines of 2002 and the use-of-force model (for Tasers)," said Walsh, adding that the Police Department's policy regarding Tasers has since been made much more restrictive.
Oliveros, who represented Hall with her husband, Robert Gorence, applauded the jury's verdict.
"The defendants did their best to make Hall look as least human as possible," she said. "But the jury's verdict is a good sign society is starting to see through racial and class profiling, as well as the complete disregard these people are often treated with."
Monday, October 2, 2006
Protestor arrested at weapons symposium
Media Credit: Photo by Luis Martin
Robert Anderson, a Central New Mexico Community College professor and local antiwar activist, is arrested by UNM Police officers in the Santa Ana room in the SUB on Friday.
by Maggie Ybarra, Daily Lobo
A protestor was arrested on charges of battery on a police officer at a symposium about nuclear warheads in the SUB on Friday.
Robert Anderson, 62, who is a Central New Mexico Community College professor, former UNM professor and local antiwar activist, pleaded not guilty on Sunday to the charge.
The symposium was held to discuss the future of the U.S. nuclear weapons program and the development of new warheads.
The event was sponsored by Sandia National Laboratories, UNM and Women in International Security.
Anderson told the audience he was protesting the event because it encouraged the creation of nuclear weapons, and the panel members did not represent diverse opinions.
The panel included at least three members of Sandia National Laboratories and a member of the National Nuclear Security Administration.
Members of Stop the War Machine, including Anderson, set up a table with posters and bumper stickers outside the Santa Ana room where the symposium was held.
The group is dedicated to educating the public about the military-industrial complex, according to the group's Web site.
Vera Norwood, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, said in an interview Sunday that she told the protestors they were allowed to have the table and participate in the symposium. However, they were not allowed to bring signs into the room, she said.
"I told him (Anderson) they were welcome to do whatever they wanted outside the room," she said. "But inside the room, there would be a series of presentations, which a lot of people had come to hear."
About 80 people attended the event.
When the presentation was about to start, Anderson and student Andrew Marcum began shouting questions to the speaker, Norwood said.
The student was holding a sign that read "Educate for peace,
not war."
Norwood told Anderson several times to stop interrupting the presentation, or he would have
to leave.
Protestor arrested at weapons symposium
Media Credit: Photo by Luis Martin
Robert Anderson, a Central New Mexico Community College professor and local antiwar activist, is arrested by UNM Police officers in the Santa Ana room in the SUB on Friday.
by Maggie Ybarra, Daily Lobo
A protestor was arrested on charges of battery on a police officer at a symposium about nuclear warheads in the SUB on Friday.
Robert Anderson, 62, who is a Central New Mexico Community College professor, former UNM professor and local antiwar activist, pleaded not guilty on Sunday to the charge.
The symposium was held to discuss the future of the U.S. nuclear weapons program and the development of new warheads.
The event was sponsored by Sandia National Laboratories, UNM and Women in International Security.
Anderson told the audience he was protesting the event because it encouraged the creation of nuclear weapons, and the panel members did not represent diverse opinions.
The panel included at least three members of Sandia National Laboratories and a member of the National Nuclear Security Administration.
Members of Stop the War Machine, including Anderson, set up a table with posters and bumper stickers outside the Santa Ana room where the symposium was held.
The group is dedicated to educating the public about the military-industrial complex, according to the group's Web site.
Vera Norwood, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, said in an interview Sunday that she told the protestors they were allowed to have the table and participate in the symposium. However, they were not allowed to bring signs into the room, she said.
"I told him (Anderson) they were welcome to do whatever they wanted outside the room," she said. "But inside the room, there would be a series of presentations, which a lot of people had come to hear."
About 80 people attended the event.
When the presentation was about to start, Anderson and student Andrew Marcum began shouting questions to the speaker, Norwood said.
The student was holding a sign that read "Educate for peace,
not war."
Norwood told Anderson several times to stop interrupting the presentation, or he would have
to leave.
Robert Anderson, a Central New Mexico Community College professor and local antiwar activist, is arrested by UNM Police officers in the Santa Ana room in the SUB on Friday.
by Maggie Ybarra, Daily Lobo
A protestor was arrested on charges of battery on a police officer at a symposium about nuclear warheads in the SUB on Friday.
Robert Anderson, 62, who is a Central New Mexico Community College professor, former UNM professor and local antiwar activist, pleaded not guilty on Sunday to the charge.
The symposium was held to discuss the future of the U.S. nuclear weapons program and the development of new warheads.
The event was sponsored by Sandia National Laboratories, UNM and Women in International Security.
Anderson told the audience he was protesting the event because it encouraged the creation of nuclear weapons, and the panel members did not represent diverse opinions.
The panel included at least three members of Sandia National Laboratories and a member of the National Nuclear Security Administration.
Members of Stop the War Machine, including Anderson, set up a table with posters and bumper stickers outside the Santa Ana room where the symposium was held.
The group is dedicated to educating the public about the military-industrial complex, according to the group's Web site.
Vera Norwood, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, said in an interview Sunday that she told the protestors they were allowed to have the table and participate in the symposium. However, they were not allowed to bring signs into the room, she said.
"I told him (Anderson) they were welcome to do whatever they wanted outside the room," she said. "But inside the room, there would be a series of presentations, which a lot of people had come to hear."
About 80 people attended the event.
When the presentation was about to start, Anderson and student Andrew Marcum began shouting questions to the speaker, Norwood said.
The student was holding a sign that read "Educate for peace,
not war."
Norwood told Anderson several times to stop interrupting the presentation, or he would have
to leave.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Review Finds Insufficient Evidence in N.Y. Doctor's Beating Allegation
Associated Press
Albuquerque's independent police review officer found insufficient evidence to back up allegations by a New York heart surgeon who accused police of roughing him up and jailing him in a confrontation with officers.
Surgeon Vincent Moss has appealed the findings, and a hearing is slated before the Police Oversight Commission on Dec. 8.
The hearing comes about a month before Moss is to appear in metropolitan court for a hearing on criminal charges filed against him in the July 17 incident.
Moss, 34, was arrested on charges of disorderly conduct and refusing to obey an officer.
His attorney, Daniel Ivey-Soto of Albuquerque, was out of town and could not be reached for comment. A spokesman for Moss said he would not comment until the criminal case ends.
Jay Rowland, review officer for the oversight commission, said the investigation into the incident in a downtown bar did not find enough evidence to recommend sanctions against the arresting officer or any other officer.
"Your complaint has been thoroughly and impartially investigated,'' Rowland wrote Moss in an Oct. 14 letter obtained this week by The Albuquerque Tribune. "There are not sufficient facts to make findings by a preponderance of the evidence on all of the allegations.''
The investigation is based on interviews with eight officers, employees of the bar, videotapes from the tavern and newspaper articles, the letter said.
Moss, who was in New Mexico last summer on a sabbatical to work at a Gallup hospital, alleged he was treated badly at the bar because he is black and that police dislocated his shoulder. He complained to Police Chief Ray Schultz, who forwarded the complaint to Rowland's office July 20.
Rowland said that because of the pending criminal case, Moss did not cooperate with the investigation or present his own witnesses.
"We don't have their side of the story,'' Rowland said.
According to his letter to Moss, the doctor yelled profanities, acted aggressively, spit on the ground, had to be bodily pulled from the bar and appeared to be high.
"A preponderance of the evidence convinces me that the officer had a reasonable basis to defend himself and arrest you,'' Rowland wrote. "Your conduct would lead a reasonable person to be concerned that you might become violent.''
Rowland's letter was released because once an appeal is filed, such a letter becomes public and its recipient is identified.
The criminal complaint against Moss identifies the arresting officer as Allen Hancock. Hancock has been the subject of at least four federal lawsuits accusing him of excessive force.
Albuquerque's independent police review officer found insufficient evidence to back up allegations by a New York heart surgeon who accused police of roughing him up and jailing him in a confrontation with officers.
Surgeon Vincent Moss has appealed the findings, and a hearing is slated before the Police Oversight Commission on Dec. 8.
The hearing comes about a month before Moss is to appear in metropolitan court for a hearing on criminal charges filed against him in the July 17 incident.
Moss, 34, was arrested on charges of disorderly conduct and refusing to obey an officer.
His attorney, Daniel Ivey-Soto of Albuquerque, was out of town and could not be reached for comment. A spokesman for Moss said he would not comment until the criminal case ends.
Jay Rowland, review officer for the oversight commission, said the investigation into the incident in a downtown bar did not find enough evidence to recommend sanctions against the arresting officer or any other officer.
"Your complaint has been thoroughly and impartially investigated,'' Rowland wrote Moss in an Oct. 14 letter obtained this week by The Albuquerque Tribune. "There are not sufficient facts to make findings by a preponderance of the evidence on all of the allegations.''
The investigation is based on interviews with eight officers, employees of the bar, videotapes from the tavern and newspaper articles, the letter said.
Moss, who was in New Mexico last summer on a sabbatical to work at a Gallup hospital, alleged he was treated badly at the bar because he is black and that police dislocated his shoulder. He complained to Police Chief Ray Schultz, who forwarded the complaint to Rowland's office July 20.
Rowland said that because of the pending criminal case, Moss did not cooperate with the investigation or present his own witnesses.
"We don't have their side of the story,'' Rowland said.
According to his letter to Moss, the doctor yelled profanities, acted aggressively, spit on the ground, had to be bodily pulled from the bar and appeared to be high.
"A preponderance of the evidence convinces me that the officer had a reasonable basis to defend himself and arrest you,'' Rowland wrote. "Your conduct would lead a reasonable person to be concerned that you might become violent.''
Rowland's letter was released because once an appeal is filed, such a letter becomes public and its recipient is identified.
The criminal complaint against Moss identifies the arresting officer as Allen Hancock. Hancock has been the subject of at least four federal lawsuits accusing him of excessive force.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Teen Shocked By Taser to Sue Cops
By Jeremy Pawloski, Journal Staff Writer
The family of a 16-year-old boy who is accused of battering a police officer during a Frito pie food fight at Capital High School Oct. 5 will sue the Santa Fe Police Department for repeatedly shocking the teen with a Taser gun during the incident.
Sheri Raphaelson, 16-year-old Nick Mendoza's civil attorney, also said that at least one of the police officers who shocked Mendoza with a Taser during the incident called Mendoza a "mojado," or wetback.
Raphaelson said that Mendoza was shocked five times, and at least two of the Taser shocks came after Mendoza had already been handcuffed.
"There is no legal or ethical justification for Tasing this child after he was handcuffed and completely under the officers' control," Raphaelson said. "Tasing the child at that point could only have been for the amusement of the police officers."
City, state and county officers were called to Capital High Oct. 5 after students started throwing Frito pie at one another, leading to a disturbance that police said involved as many as 200 students. A security guard was treated for a mild concussion after he was hit in the head with a large object, possibly a bottle or rock.
Mendoza is charged in Santa Fe Children's Court with battery against a police officer and resisting arrest.
Prosecutor Heidi Zoyhofski said one police detective has already told a judge that when police responded at Capital High School, Mendoza was "trying to grab an officer around the waist, trying to body slam him to the ground."
Zoyhofski also noted that Mendoza has seven referrals to juvenile court for various juvenile offenses, and four of them are "for battery-type offenses."
Raphaelson said it is unfortunate that Mendoza is the only one who was charged in the aftermath of the Frito pie food fight, particularly in light of the fact that Mendoza was not even involved.
"He wasn't even in the cafeteria at the time of the food fight," Raphaelson said.
Santa Fe City Attorney Bruce Thompson said Tuesday he was not aware of the potential for litigation against the police department for shocking Mendoza, and so he did not have an immediate comment.
Santa Fe Deputy Police Chief Eric Johnson has said police who responded to the food fight "acted within our policy and procedure."
Mark Dickson, Mendoza's Children's Court attorney, said Tuesday, "It's unfortunate that Nick was Tased."
Dickson was present during a Tuesday hearing to decide whether Mendoza would be released from a juvenile detention facility pending the outcome of his charges.
Dickson added that Mendoza "is not a large adolescent by any means."
Zoyhofski said during Tuesday's hearing that Mendoza is a documented gang member, but Dickson denied that Mendoza is a member of any gang.
Raphaelson said the reason police paid any attention to Mendoza at all is because he had responded to other students who were yelling "mojado" at him.
Santa Fe District Judge Michael Vigil ruled that Mendoza must remain in custody until a juvenile hearing to be held Monday morning before Santa Fe Children's Court Judge Barbara Vigil.
During Monday's hearing, school officials will have already met to decide what Mendoza's school status will be, and that is an outcome that Judge Michael Vigil said he wants Judge Barbara Vigil to have at her disposal before she makes a ruling on whether he should remain in custody.
Raphaelson said that because Mendoza is a special education student, it is unlikely that he will be suspended from Capital High. If a school district suspends a special education student, that school district must pay to educate the student at home, under an individualized education plan.
The family of a 16-year-old boy who is accused of battering a police officer during a Frito pie food fight at Capital High School Oct. 5 will sue the Santa Fe Police Department for repeatedly shocking the teen with a Taser gun during the incident.
Sheri Raphaelson, 16-year-old Nick Mendoza's civil attorney, also said that at least one of the police officers who shocked Mendoza with a Taser during the incident called Mendoza a "mojado," or wetback.
Raphaelson said that Mendoza was shocked five times, and at least two of the Taser shocks came after Mendoza had already been handcuffed.
"There is no legal or ethical justification for Tasing this child after he was handcuffed and completely under the officers' control," Raphaelson said. "Tasing the child at that point could only have been for the amusement of the police officers."
City, state and county officers were called to Capital High Oct. 5 after students started throwing Frito pie at one another, leading to a disturbance that police said involved as many as 200 students. A security guard was treated for a mild concussion after he was hit in the head with a large object, possibly a bottle or rock.
Mendoza is charged in Santa Fe Children's Court with battery against a police officer and resisting arrest.
Prosecutor Heidi Zoyhofski said one police detective has already told a judge that when police responded at Capital High School, Mendoza was "trying to grab an officer around the waist, trying to body slam him to the ground."
Zoyhofski also noted that Mendoza has seven referrals to juvenile court for various juvenile offenses, and four of them are "for battery-type offenses."
Raphaelson said it is unfortunate that Mendoza is the only one who was charged in the aftermath of the Frito pie food fight, particularly in light of the fact that Mendoza was not even involved.
"He wasn't even in the cafeteria at the time of the food fight," Raphaelson said.
Santa Fe City Attorney Bruce Thompson said Tuesday he was not aware of the potential for litigation against the police department for shocking Mendoza, and so he did not have an immediate comment.
Santa Fe Deputy Police Chief Eric Johnson has said police who responded to the food fight "acted within our policy and procedure."
Mark Dickson, Mendoza's Children's Court attorney, said Tuesday, "It's unfortunate that Nick was Tased."
Dickson was present during a Tuesday hearing to decide whether Mendoza would be released from a juvenile detention facility pending the outcome of his charges.
Dickson added that Mendoza "is not a large adolescent by any means."
Zoyhofski said during Tuesday's hearing that Mendoza is a documented gang member, but Dickson denied that Mendoza is a member of any gang.
Raphaelson said the reason police paid any attention to Mendoza at all is because he had responded to other students who were yelling "mojado" at him.
Santa Fe District Judge Michael Vigil ruled that Mendoza must remain in custody until a juvenile hearing to be held Monday morning before Santa Fe Children's Court Judge Barbara Vigil.
During Monday's hearing, school officials will have already met to decide what Mendoza's school status will be, and that is an outcome that Judge Michael Vigil said he wants Judge Barbara Vigil to have at her disposal before she makes a ruling on whether he should remain in custody.
Raphaelson said that because Mendoza is a special education student, it is unlikely that he will be suspended from Capital High. If a school district suspends a special education student, that school district must pay to educate the student at home, under an individualized education plan.
Teen Shocked By Taser to Sue Cops
By Jeremy Pawloski , Journal Staff Writer
The family of a 16-year-old boy who is accused of battering a police officer during a Frito pie food fight at Capital High School Oct. 5 will sue the Santa Fe Police Department for repeatedly shocking the teen with a Taser gun during the incident.
Sheri Raphaelson, 16-year-old Nick Mendoza's civil attorney, also said that at least one of the police officers who shocked Mendoza with a Taser during the incident called Mendoza a "mojado," or wetback.
Raphaelson said that Mendoza was shocked five times, and at least two of the Taser shocks came after Mendoza had already been handcuffed.
"There is no legal or ethical justification for Tasing this child after he was handcuffed and completely under the officers' control," Raphaelson said. "Tasing the child at that point could only have been for the amusement of the police officers."
City, state and county officers were called to Capital High Oct. 5 after students started throwing Frito pie at one another, leading to a disturbance that police said involved as many as 200 students. A security guard was treated for a mild concussion after he was hit in the head with a large object, possibly a bottle or rock.
Mendoza is charged in Santa Fe Children's Court with battery against a police officer and resisting arrest.
Prosecutor Heidi Zoyhofski said one police detective has already told a judge that when police responded at Capital High School, Mendoza was "trying to grab an officer around the waist, trying to body slam him to the ground."
Zoyhofski also noted that Mendoza has seven referrals to juvenile court for various juvenile offenses, and four of them are "for battery-type offenses."
Raphaelson said it is unfortunate that Mendoza is the only one who was charged in the aftermath of the Frito pie food fight, particularly in light of the fact that Mendoza was not even involved.
"He wasn't even in the cafeteria at the time of the food fight," Raphaelson said.
Santa Fe City Attorney Bruce Thompson said Tuesday he was not aware of the potential for litigation against the police department for shocking Mendoza, and so he did not have an immediate comment.
Santa Fe Deputy Police Chief Eric Johnson has said police who responded to the food fight "acted within our policy and procedure."
Mark Dickson, Mendoza's Children's Court attorney, said Tuesday, "It's unfortunate that Nick was Tased."
Dickson was present during a Tuesday hearing to decide whether Mendoza would be released from a juvenile detention facility pending the outcome of his charges.
Dickson added that Mendoza "is not a large adolescent by any means."
Zoyhofski said during Tuesday's hearing that Mendoza is a documented gang member, but Dickson denied that Mendoza is a member of any gang.
Raphaelson said the reason police paid any attention to Mendoza at all is because he had responded to other students who were yelling "mojado" at him.
Santa Fe District Judge Michael Vigil ruled that Mendoza must remain in custody until a juvenile hearing to be held Monday morning before Santa Fe Children's Court Judge Barbara Vigil.
During Monday's hearing, school officials will have already met to decide what Mendoza's school status will be, and that is an outcome that Judge Michael Vigil said he wants Judge Barbara Vigil to have at her disposal before she makes a ruling on whether he should remain in custody.
Raphaelson said that because Mendoza is a special education student, it is unlikely that he will be suspended from Capital High. If a school district suspends a special education student, that school district must pay to educate the student at home, under an individualized education plan.
The family of a 16-year-old boy who is accused of battering a police officer during a Frito pie food fight at Capital High School Oct. 5 will sue the Santa Fe Police Department for repeatedly shocking the teen with a Taser gun during the incident.
Sheri Raphaelson, 16-year-old Nick Mendoza's civil attorney, also said that at least one of the police officers who shocked Mendoza with a Taser during the incident called Mendoza a "mojado," or wetback.
Raphaelson said that Mendoza was shocked five times, and at least two of the Taser shocks came after Mendoza had already been handcuffed.
"There is no legal or ethical justification for Tasing this child after he was handcuffed and completely under the officers' control," Raphaelson said. "Tasing the child at that point could only have been for the amusement of the police officers."
City, state and county officers were called to Capital High Oct. 5 after students started throwing Frito pie at one another, leading to a disturbance that police said involved as many as 200 students. A security guard was treated for a mild concussion after he was hit in the head with a large object, possibly a bottle or rock.
Mendoza is charged in Santa Fe Children's Court with battery against a police officer and resisting arrest.
Prosecutor Heidi Zoyhofski said one police detective has already told a judge that when police responded at Capital High School, Mendoza was "trying to grab an officer around the waist, trying to body slam him to the ground."
Zoyhofski also noted that Mendoza has seven referrals to juvenile court for various juvenile offenses, and four of them are "for battery-type offenses."
Raphaelson said it is unfortunate that Mendoza is the only one who was charged in the aftermath of the Frito pie food fight, particularly in light of the fact that Mendoza was not even involved.
"He wasn't even in the cafeteria at the time of the food fight," Raphaelson said.
Santa Fe City Attorney Bruce Thompson said Tuesday he was not aware of the potential for litigation against the police department for shocking Mendoza, and so he did not have an immediate comment.
Santa Fe Deputy Police Chief Eric Johnson has said police who responded to the food fight "acted within our policy and procedure."
Mark Dickson, Mendoza's Children's Court attorney, said Tuesday, "It's unfortunate that Nick was Tased."
Dickson was present during a Tuesday hearing to decide whether Mendoza would be released from a juvenile detention facility pending the outcome of his charges.
Dickson added that Mendoza "is not a large adolescent by any means."
Zoyhofski said during Tuesday's hearing that Mendoza is a documented gang member, but Dickson denied that Mendoza is a member of any gang.
Raphaelson said the reason police paid any attention to Mendoza at all is because he had responded to other students who were yelling "mojado" at him.
Santa Fe District Judge Michael Vigil ruled that Mendoza must remain in custody until a juvenile hearing to be held Monday morning before Santa Fe Children's Court Judge Barbara Vigil.
During Monday's hearing, school officials will have already met to decide what Mendoza's school status will be, and that is an outcome that Judge Michael Vigil said he wants Judge Barbara Vigil to have at her disposal before she makes a ruling on whether he should remain in custody.
Raphaelson said that because Mendoza is a special education student, it is unlikely that he will be suspended from Capital High. If a school district suspends a special education student, that school district must pay to educate the student at home, under an individualized education plan.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Board Won't Rule In Police Abuse
By Jeff Proctor, Journal Staff Writer
Jay Rowland, Albuquerque's top police watchdog, found himself in an unfamiliar position earlier this year when he saw an APD officer kick a homeless man "for absolutely no reason."
Rowland filed a citizen complaint against the officer, who was not named, in the Jan. 7 incident, alleging excessive force.
Police Chief Ray Schultz agreed with Rowland that the officer used poor judgment but ruled that there was not enough evidence to sustain the excessive force complaint.
At its monthly meeting last week, the Police Oversight Commission heard Rowland's and APD's versions of the incident but declined to rule on the case, citing conflict of interest. The case will be decided by the city Chief Administrative Officer James Lewis.
Rowland normally investigates citizen complaints, makes a ruling, then reports to the commission.
According to Rowland:
The officer got out of his car— on First SE, near the Century Downtown movie theater— and began talking to a man who "looked homeless."
"I couldn't hear the conversation, but I heard the officer say 'curb,' '' Rowland said. "He then kicked the man so hard he almost fell down. ... The man kept saying, 'But you didn't have to kick me.' ''
Rowland did not approach the officer at the time, instead deciding to go to the movies with his daughter and son-in-law.
Rowland's daughter and son-in-law also testified they believe the officer used excessive force in the incident.
According to APD Lt. Matt Suazo, who investigated the case for the department's internal affairs division:
A woman had flagged the officer down and reported that a pair of transient men were throwing rocks at buses.
One of the men tried to flee, and the officer apprehended him. After the man tried twice more to get away, the officer "did grab him by the shoulder and strike him, but only enough to gain compliance," Suazo said.
The officer did not cuff the man, nor did he write an incident report, Suazo said.
"Both of those things should have been done, and he was disciplined appropriately," he said.
Rowland contends the man was "in no shape to run, so he wasn't going to escape."
"Maybe handcuff him," Rowland said. "But there are other things to do besides a kick of the magnitude I saw."
Jay Rowland, Albuquerque's top police watchdog, found himself in an unfamiliar position earlier this year when he saw an APD officer kick a homeless man "for absolutely no reason."
Rowland filed a citizen complaint against the officer, who was not named, in the Jan. 7 incident, alleging excessive force.
Police Chief Ray Schultz agreed with Rowland that the officer used poor judgment but ruled that there was not enough evidence to sustain the excessive force complaint.
At its monthly meeting last week, the Police Oversight Commission heard Rowland's and APD's versions of the incident but declined to rule on the case, citing conflict of interest. The case will be decided by the city Chief Administrative Officer James Lewis.
Rowland normally investigates citizen complaints, makes a ruling, then reports to the commission.
According to Rowland:
The officer got out of his car— on First SE, near the Century Downtown movie theater— and began talking to a man who "looked homeless."
"I couldn't hear the conversation, but I heard the officer say 'curb,' '' Rowland said. "He then kicked the man so hard he almost fell down. ... The man kept saying, 'But you didn't have to kick me.' ''
Rowland did not approach the officer at the time, instead deciding to go to the movies with his daughter and son-in-law.
Rowland's daughter and son-in-law also testified they believe the officer used excessive force in the incident.
According to APD Lt. Matt Suazo, who investigated the case for the department's internal affairs division:
A woman had flagged the officer down and reported that a pair of transient men were throwing rocks at buses.
One of the men tried to flee, and the officer apprehended him. After the man tried twice more to get away, the officer "did grab him by the shoulder and strike him, but only enough to gain compliance," Suazo said.
The officer did not cuff the man, nor did he write an incident report, Suazo said.
"Both of those things should have been done, and he was disciplined appropriately," he said.
Rowland contends the man was "in no shape to run, so he wasn't going to escape."
"Maybe handcuff him," Rowland said. "But there are other things to do besides a kick of the magnitude I saw."
Friday, July 22, 2005
APD Officer Named in Other Excessive Force Lawsuits
Associated Press
One of two Albuquerque police officers that a New York heart surgeon says roughed him up has been named in four federal lawsuits alleging excessive force.
Surgeon Vincent Moss, who is on a two-month sabbatical working at Gallup's Indian Medical Center, was arrested early Sunday on charges of disorderly conduct and refusing to obey an officer. He was released on $75 bond.
Moss contends two officers threw him to the ground, separating his shoulder, and falsely arrested him after he complained to a bar manager about not being served. He said he suspects he was badly treated because he's black.
The bar's manager said Moss was aggressive and officers acted appropriately.
Police Chief Ray Schultz has asked the city's independent review office to investigate.
One officer listed on the criminal complaint against Moss is Allen Hancock — one of two officers named in a 1998 federal lawsuit that alleged Hancock crushed a man's hand with his foot during a traffic stop, The Albuquerque Tribune reported Friday.
That man, who is black, settled for a "reasonable'' amount, said his attorney, Philip Davis.
The Tribune said Hancock was named in another 1998 federal lawsuit alleging he refused to let a Hispanic man tend his wife after her head was cut when she was knocked down by another officer. The lawsuit alleges Hancock made the man take four blood-alcohol tests that all were within the legal limit, so Hancock broke the device and charged the man with DWI.
The man was found not guilty, and the lawsuit was settled and dismissed in 1999. The Tribune said attorneys in the case could not confirm what the city paid.
Albuquerque police spokesman John Walsh said Hancock is a veteran SWAT officer and that SWAT officers often are the subjects of complaints given the high intensity of the situations where they're called.
Figures from the Albuquerque Police Oversight Commission said that in general, complaints against officers are rising.
Hancock is among numerous officers named in two pending federal lawsuits.
One, filed in March, accuses 15 Albuquerque officers of using excessive force during an anti-Iraq war protest in March 2003. It alleges they fired beanbag rounds, pepper spray and tear gas at the peaceful protesters.
Hancock is among 19 Albuquerque officers and four Rio Rancho police officers accused in a 2004 federal lawsuit of breaking into the home of an elderly women, her daughter and two teenage children to serve a search warrant.
The lawsuit alleges officers tossed in flash-bang grenades, pointed guns at the family, made abusive comments, handcuffed the elderly woman so tightly she was hospitalized and injured the other woman by stepping on her back.
Nothing was found at the home and no one was charged.
One of two Albuquerque police officers that a New York heart surgeon says roughed him up has been named in four federal lawsuits alleging excessive force.
Surgeon Vincent Moss, who is on a two-month sabbatical working at Gallup's Indian Medical Center, was arrested early Sunday on charges of disorderly conduct and refusing to obey an officer. He was released on $75 bond.
Moss contends two officers threw him to the ground, separating his shoulder, and falsely arrested him after he complained to a bar manager about not being served. He said he suspects he was badly treated because he's black.
The bar's manager said Moss was aggressive and officers acted appropriately.
Police Chief Ray Schultz has asked the city's independent review office to investigate.
One officer listed on the criminal complaint against Moss is Allen Hancock — one of two officers named in a 1998 federal lawsuit that alleged Hancock crushed a man's hand with his foot during a traffic stop, The Albuquerque Tribune reported Friday.
That man, who is black, settled for a "reasonable'' amount, said his attorney, Philip Davis.
The Tribune said Hancock was named in another 1998 federal lawsuit alleging he refused to let a Hispanic man tend his wife after her head was cut when she was knocked down by another officer. The lawsuit alleges Hancock made the man take four blood-alcohol tests that all were within the legal limit, so Hancock broke the device and charged the man with DWI.
The man was found not guilty, and the lawsuit was settled and dismissed in 1999. The Tribune said attorneys in the case could not confirm what the city paid.
Albuquerque police spokesman John Walsh said Hancock is a veteran SWAT officer and that SWAT officers often are the subjects of complaints given the high intensity of the situations where they're called.
Figures from the Albuquerque Police Oversight Commission said that in general, complaints against officers are rising.
Hancock is among numerous officers named in two pending federal lawsuits.
One, filed in March, accuses 15 Albuquerque officers of using excessive force during an anti-Iraq war protest in March 2003. It alleges they fired beanbag rounds, pepper spray and tear gas at the peaceful protesters.
Hancock is among 19 Albuquerque officers and four Rio Rancho police officers accused in a 2004 federal lawsuit of breaking into the home of an elderly women, her daughter and two teenage children to serve a search warrant.
The lawsuit alleges officers tossed in flash-bang grenades, pointed guns at the family, made abusive comments, handcuffed the elderly woman so tightly she was hospitalized and injured the other woman by stepping on her back.
Nothing was found at the home and no one was charged.
Saturday, June 11, 2005
City to pay $100,000 in officer attack
By Maggie Shepard
The Albuquerque Tribune June 11, 2005
An Albuquerque police officer's actions will cost the city $100,000, the amount awarded to a man he is accused of pepper-spraying and whose arm was broken during a September 2003 incident.
On Wednesday, a federal jury in Santa Fe found Officer Keith L. Sheley liable for using excessive force against Adam Arendt, 31. Arendt had been walking Downtown with his girlfriend when he was assaulted, according to court documents.
Sheley, responding to the assault, pepper-sprayed Arendt and pushed him against a wall, breaking his arm, according to court documents.
Claims that Sheley and his supervisor, Steven Hall, falsely arrested, neglected and unlawfully detained Arendt were dismissed, said Kathryn Levy, the city attorney assigned to the case.
Sheley, still with the Police Department, now works in the Valley Area Command.
The department has concluded an internal investigation into the incident, police spokeswoman Sgt. Beth Paiz said.
The results of the investigation and any administrative action - which could include suspension, a reprimand or retraining - for Sheley is confidential, Paiz said.
Levy said the $100,000 judgment was for compensation, not for punitive reasons.
There were no criminal charges filed in the incident, but the department was alerted to Arendt's lawsuit as a matter of policy.
Any lawsuit involving a police officer is forwarded to the department's internal affairs unit, said Charles Kolberg, a city risk manager.
Usually, though, Kolberg said, complaints are filed with the police department or the city's Police Oversight Commission before lawsuits are filed.
Levy said the city has not decided whether to appeal the case.
The Albuquerque Tribune June 11, 2005
An Albuquerque police officer's actions will cost the city $100,000, the amount awarded to a man he is accused of pepper-spraying and whose arm was broken during a September 2003 incident.
On Wednesday, a federal jury in Santa Fe found Officer Keith L. Sheley liable for using excessive force against Adam Arendt, 31. Arendt had been walking Downtown with his girlfriend when he was assaulted, according to court documents.
Sheley, responding to the assault, pepper-sprayed Arendt and pushed him against a wall, breaking his arm, according to court documents.
Claims that Sheley and his supervisor, Steven Hall, falsely arrested, neglected and unlawfully detained Arendt were dismissed, said Kathryn Levy, the city attorney assigned to the case.
Sheley, still with the Police Department, now works in the Valley Area Command.
The department has concluded an internal investigation into the incident, police spokeswoman Sgt. Beth Paiz said.
The results of the investigation and any administrative action - which could include suspension, a reprimand or retraining - for Sheley is confidential, Paiz said.
Levy said the $100,000 judgment was for compensation, not for punitive reasons.
There were no criminal charges filed in the incident, but the department was alerted to Arendt's lawsuit as a matter of policy.
Any lawsuit involving a police officer is forwarded to the department's internal affairs unit, said Charles Kolberg, a city risk manager.
Usually, though, Kolberg said, complaints are filed with the police department or the city's Police Oversight Commission before lawsuits are filed.
Levy said the city has not decided whether to appeal the case.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Brutality Claim Filed Against APD
By Megan Feldman, Journal Staff Writer
Albuquerque Police Department's Internal Affairs is investigating allegations that police officers slammed a suspect to the ground and beat him with their fists and flashlights.
Allegations of excessive force were initially reported to Independent Review Officer Jay Rowland on April 11. Rowland is sending all citizen complaints to Internal Affairs while he investigates APD's handling of problems at the evidence room.
Agustin Juarez, who lives next door to the house where Tim Chism, 28, and James Romero, 43, were arrested, filed a witness statement with Rowland on April 11.
Juarez said in an interview with the Journal that he was at home when he heard yelling and loud noises.
He said he went to the window and saw several officers ordering a man to come out and put his hands up.
After the man complied and was handcuffed, the officers threw him to the ground and struck him repeatedly with their fists and flashlights, Juarez said in a statement submitted to Rowland.
The officers were yelling obscenities, the statement said.
Police spokesman John Walsh confirmed last week that Internal Affairs is looking into accusations of excessive force.
"Given the seriousness of the allegations, IA will be investigating," he said. Walsh declined further comment.
According to a Metropolitan Court criminal complaint, Chism and Romero refused to obey officers who responded to a drug traffic call in the 1200 block of Summer NW about 9:30 p.m. on April 10.
When officers entered the home, where Chism said he and his girlfriend were staying, they found drugs, a marijuana pipe and other drug paraphernalia within reach of Chism's child, according to the complaint. The girlfriend was not charged.
The criminal complaint states that Romero tried to flee the scene.
Chism is being held on charges of eluding a police officer, possession of drug paraphernalia and child endangerment.
Albuquerque Police Department's Internal Affairs is investigating allegations that police officers slammed a suspect to the ground and beat him with their fists and flashlights.
Allegations of excessive force were initially reported to Independent Review Officer Jay Rowland on April 11. Rowland is sending all citizen complaints to Internal Affairs while he investigates APD's handling of problems at the evidence room.
Agustin Juarez, who lives next door to the house where Tim Chism, 28, and James Romero, 43, were arrested, filed a witness statement with Rowland on April 11.
Juarez said in an interview with the Journal that he was at home when he heard yelling and loud noises.
He said he went to the window and saw several officers ordering a man to come out and put his hands up.
After the man complied and was handcuffed, the officers threw him to the ground and struck him repeatedly with their fists and flashlights, Juarez said in a statement submitted to Rowland.
The officers were yelling obscenities, the statement said.
Police spokesman John Walsh confirmed last week that Internal Affairs is looking into accusations of excessive force.
"Given the seriousness of the allegations, IA will be investigating," he said. Walsh declined further comment.
According to a Metropolitan Court criminal complaint, Chism and Romero refused to obey officers who responded to a drug traffic call in the 1200 block of Summer NW about 9:30 p.m. on April 10.
When officers entered the home, where Chism said he and his girlfriend were staying, they found drugs, a marijuana pipe and other drug paraphernalia within reach of Chism's child, according to the complaint. The girlfriend was not charged.
The criminal complaint states that Romero tried to flee the scene.
Chism is being held on charges of eluding a police officer, possession of drug paraphernalia and child endangerment.
Thursday, November 7, 2002
City May Pay $450,000 for Police Dog Bite
November 7, 2002
Albuquerque Journal
The city could end up paying more than $400,000 to resolve an excessive force lawsuit brought by a teenager who was bitten by an Albuquerque police dog.
A federal court jury late Tuesday awarded 19-year-old Moriah Smith $50,000 in damages against APD officer Andrew Lehocky after concluding he violated her civil rights when his police dog, Bart, attacked Smith.
That set up a second phase of the trial to determine the city's liability based on APD policies and supervision of police dogs. Smith's attorneys had subpoenaed Mayor Martin Chávez and Police Chief Gil Gallegos to testify.
Just as those proceedings were to begin Wednesday, lawyers for Smith and the city reached a deal and the jury was dismissed.
"We looked at the verdict (against the officer) and the city decided not to appeal it," said Kathryn Levy, an assistant city attorney. She wouldn't elaborate. The city, which was also named in the lawsuit, is responsible for paying the $50,000 against the officer and attorneys fees in the case.
Smith and her lawyers, Brad Hall and Joe Kennedy, called the verdict and resolution a victory.
"The plaintiff believed that police should warn people that they're going to use an attack dog and if they don't warn them they should use a leash or a muzzle because it's a serious level of force," said attorney Brad Hall. "We appreciate the jury figuring out the big picture."
Smith, then 16, was unarmed and hiding from police at a Northeast Heights schoolyard in 1999 when Lehocky unleashed the 80-pound Belgian Malinois to find her. The dog clamped down on Smith's right leg, causing injuries that resulted in three surgeries.
Police were investigating a report that Smith had been seen with a boy who had fired a gun at a group of youths at a nearby park.
According to testimony, no warning was given before the dog was unleashed. Smith later was charged with trespassing on school property.
Lehocky's lawyers argued that Smith was responsible for events that led to the bite. They said Lehocky acted reasonably in unleashing the dog to find a suspect who possibly was armed and dangerous.
Smith testified that she would have surrendered had she been warned. Because they prevailed on the civil rights claim, Smith's lawyers were entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs. The agreement allows an arbitrator to determine the amount the city will pay Smith's lawyers.
Kennedy said the total price tag — including the $50,000 for Smith — could run as high as $450,000.
As part of the deal, APD Chief Gallegos and Schultz agreed to review APD policies on when and how police dogs are deployed, Hall said.
"We have confidence that they'll take us seriously," said Kennedy.
Smith said she will now have money to pay for plastic surgery on the deep scar the bite left.
"It wasn't (about getting) the money for me," said Smith, who now lives in Pennsylvania. "It was the moral of the whole situation. These dogs shouldn't be allowed to bite people."
As part of the agreement, an official judgment against Lehocky won't be entered in court records.
"In a future case (such a judgment) could have been used by another lawyer against Lehocky," said the officer's attorney Luis Robles.
Lehocky still faces three other dog bite lawsuits, Robles said.
Robles said his client was "very disappointed" by the jury verdict at the conclusion of the four-day trial.
"I see it as a compromise verdict," Robles said, noting that the jury gave Smith nothing for pain and suffering and awarded no punitive damages.
Robles said Smith's plastic surgeon testified that surgery to reduce the scar would cost about $50,000.
"I would have thought that if they thought Officer Lehocky did something he shouldn't have, they would have given her more than just the money to fix her scar," Robles said.
Jury verdicts in dog bite cases nationwide have tended to favor the police, experts say.
Earlier this year, Lehocky was exonerated in two lawsuits involving police dog bites. In 2000, the city settled a dog bite claim against him for $210,000.
That led to Lehocky, a 20-year-veteran, transferring from the dog unit to the SWAT team. A year earlier, he received an award from then-Police Chief Jerry Galvin for stellar work in the K-9 unit.
Kennedy and Hall on Wednesday had planned to introduce evidence of prior injuries caused by police dogs, how police review such cases, and APD police dogs' failure to guard and bark as trained.
City Attorney Bob White said the agreement didn't conflict with the mayor's policy against settling civil rights cases filed against APD.
He said Chávez never meant to imply the city would appeal all jury verdicts against the police. The no-settlement rule, he said, applies to pre-trial settlements. Chávez instituted the settlement ban in January, saying allegations of misconduct should be aired publicly and not behind closed doors by lawyers.
Sunday, May 26, 2002
Police-Dog Bitings Cost City More Than $940,000
May 26, 2002
ALBUQUERQUE (AP) — Police dogs have taken a $725,000 bite out of city coffers from payouts to victims of K-9 attacks, and it could rise to $942,000 if defense lawyers get the amount they’ve billed.
Seven APD dog-bite lawsuits are pending in court, including two filed last week, and dozens of citizens who were neither armed nor violent have been bitten, but police say the practice is justified.
Civil rights lawyers disagree.
Moriah Smith, 16, a witness to a shooting incident, says she was crouching behind a row of bushes in a schoolyard when an 80-pound police dog attacked her without warning, biting into her calf and shaking it violently, permanently disfiguring it.
Smith is one of 107 people bitten by APD dogs since 1996, and is among people who have sued the city over those bites.
Officers have claimed in several cases that they allowed their dogs to continue biting suspects for the officers’ own safety. In one case, the Albuquerque Journal reported Sunday, an unarmed suspect was ordered to walk toward an officer with a police dog still attached to her backside.
Sometimes, police dogs have even attacked sleeping people, generally transients, who were not accused of a crime, the newspaper reported.
According to APD policy, dogs can be deployed when a person flees, resists arrest or poses a threat, depending on the severity of the crime.
Police and their lawyers say the people who are bitten often are complicit in their refusal to obey lawful police orders.
‘‘There becomes a point in time where these people have to take responsibility for their own conduct,’’ said Albuquerque attorney Luis Robles, who defends APD officers in court. ‘‘There were a number of times they could have complied with police and they didn’t. There will be consequences, but they brought it upon themselves.’’
On Feb. 26, 1999, police considered Smith a potential felon. After she was attacked, she was arrested for criminal trespass. Her lawyers allege the attack was excessive force. They want the force to curb their dogs, even muzzle them on some searches.
‘‘There’s no reason for dogs to bite people,’’ said Brad Hall, an attorney representing Smith. ‘‘When they unleash the dog they don’t know if it’s going to bite a victim, a suspect or a witness.’’
Nick Bakas, the city’s chief public safety officer, said in the cases he’s aware of, ‘‘I feel comfortable stating that the officers were within police policy and acted appropriately.’’
Police have said Smith must have provoked the dog attack. And they using a dog in that situation defused dangerous circumstances in which officers might have had to use deadly force.
After Smith’s attack, K-9 officer Andrew Lehocky said his supervisor, Sgt. Tom Garduno, told him: ‘‘Good job.’’
Police data show the use of police dogs has escalated since 1996. Dog deployments jumped from 292 in 1996 to 1,449 in 2000, then fell to 1,201 last year.
In 1996, police took someone into custody using a dog 18 times. That rose 97 in 2000. Last year, 71 apprehensions were reported.
A police captain who oversaw the K-9 unit said a year ago that APD was now more likely to muzzle dogs for searches. But deputy chief Ray Schultz testified in a recent deposition that muzzling hasn’t happened and he knew of no plans to do so. Current police operating policy makes no mention of muzzling.
Bakas, who oversees police, fire and corrections for Mayor Martin Chavez, said last week said the department is reviewing K-9 policy.
‘‘We’re looking for accountability and documentation and justification whenever we use dogs, as we would in any use of force situation.’’
A Journal review of APD documents shows many of the people bitten over the past six years have been young and were either hiding or fleeing from police.
‘‘The majority of dog uses are for searches of buildings, and typically those people are unarmed,’’ said Albuquerque attorney Joe Kennedy, who also represents Smith in her lawsuit.
Sometimes police dogs have apprehended violent people fleeing arrest, such as bank robber Byron Shane Chubbuck, who was armed when caught in 1999.
The International Chiefs of Police Association says dog bites have generated a ‘‘near cottage industry’’ for civil litigation.
A large part of the problem has stemmed from ‘‘inappropriate deployment and-or lack of control of canines by their handlers,’’ according to a report last year by the association.
In recent years, the U.S. Justice Department has scrutinized several police departments’ dog units for possible civil rights violations.
Lehocky, by his own personal records, recorded 128 dog bites in his career, a city document shows.
Marlo Marquez, 19, who filed an excessive force lawsuit against the city last year, had been a passenger in a car being chased by police. The car crashed into a wall. She got out and started to run.
Bart bit her leg and buttock, after which Lehocky ordered her to walk over to him — with Bart still hanging on. She was charged with resisting and eluding police.
APD’s policy requires officers to issue a warning: ‘‘This is the APD, come out now or a dog will be used to locate you.’’
But Garduno in a deposition has said officers have discretion not to issue a warning if police safety would be jeopardized.
In the Smith case, Lehocky’s report states only: ‘‘K-9 warnings were not issued due to offender(s) demonstrated their effort to flee/conceal from police, armed with a firearm, and having total disregard for human life.’’
Saturday, July 28, 2001
Lawsuits accuse Gallup officers of misconduct
Andrea Egger
Staff Writer, The Gallup Independent
GALLUP — Lawsuits for police brutality have been filed against the Gallup Police Department, a Gallup police officer and a former Gallup police officer.
Gallup Officer Owen Pena and former officer Daron Overman, who filed a lawsuit last week against the police department for discipline issues, are under fire in two lawsuits charging them with using excessive force in two different incidents of arrest.
Ramah attorney William Stripp, who filed the two lawsuits against the officers, said he was amused at Saturday's Independent, in which a story appeared about Overman and Pena suing the police department for being disciplined.
"Both of these officers have displayed a pattern of misconduct," Stripp said.
Stripp actually filed the lawsuits Aug. 8 and Aug. 9. The Independent learned about them Monday.
Gallup Police Chief Daniel Kneale, who started as chief Aug. 7, said he doesn't know anything about these lawsuits because he wasn't around when the incidents allegedly took place.
The lawsuit against Overman, which also names as defendants officers Gerald Tholund and Anthony Ashley, dates back to an incident on Aug. 25, 1998. Plaintiffs are Jennifer Jones of Gallup and her baby, Joseph.
The complaint alleges that Ashley attempted to stop the vehicle driven by Daniel Pena, who is the father of Joseph, on Interstate 40. Jones and her baby were passengers in Daniel Pena's car. The reason for the stop was that the vehicle Pena drove had an expired license plate tag.
The lawsuit claims that Daniel Pena wanted to take Jones and the baby home before stopping for police because on April 13, 1998, an encounter with former Lt. Calvin Wiggins ended with Jones getting her front teeth knocked out. This made Jones and Daniel Pena afraid of the police, according to the complaint.
Ashley pursued the car, and Overman joined in the pursuit. At some point, the lawsuit alleges that Overman drove up next to the car and noticed Jones and the baby in the car.
Daniel Pena exited the interstate at the west interchange and drove into a dead-end street, at which point, Overman and Ashley exited their police cars. Daniel Pena started to make a U-turn.
"As (Daniel) Pena turned his car around, Overman began to shoot at (Daniel) Pena's car," according to the lawsuit.
A pursuit began again on Highway 66, with Tholund joining in. At Highway 66 and Dean Street, Daniel Pena's car stalled. At this point, the lawsuit alleges that Overman and other officers jumped out of their police cars and smashed the windshield of the car with their nightsticks and attempted to drag the suspect out of the car.
"When (Daniel) Pena started his car and put it into reverse, Tholund, who was aware that Jones and infant were in Pena's car, fired multiple rounds at (Daniel) Pena's car," according to the lawsuit.
Daniel Pena drove Jones and the baby to a nearby trailer park, stopped and ran. Police apprehended him and arrested him.
Stripp, whose lawsuit was filed on behalf of Jones and the infant, said in an interview Monday that police could have killed Jones and the baby by firing at the car. And they knew the baby was in the car, Stripp said.
"Who are the ones committing child endangerment in a case like this?" Stripp said.
He added that an expired tag is no reason to chase a vehicle. "In typical cowboy-and-Indian fashion, they turned it into a wild chase and a shoot-em-up," Stripp said.
Officer's side
The lawsuit doesn't tell the whole story, said Overman, who spoke about the case in an interview since he no longer works for the police department.
Overman said he didn't see the baby in the car until Daniel Pena's car stalled and he exited his police car.
During the actual chase, "He tried running me off the road," Overman said. "I shot at the tires."
When the car stalled, Overman ran to Pena's car and tried to pull him out of the car. At this point, Daniel Pena backed up, with Overman still hanging on to the car.
"He dragged me several feet," Overman said.
Daniel Pena then almost ran over Tholund, who was also on foot. Tholund shot at the tires, Overman said.
They arrested him for aggravated assault on a police officer and other charges, including child endangerment, Overman said.
In the case Stripp filed against Owen Pena, plaintiff Luis Alejandro Acosta accused Pena of police brutality.
The case alleges that on May 15, 2000, Acosta stopped at a gas station on Coal Avenue to make a telephone call. Owen Pena pulled into the gas station and told Acosta that someone had made a report of Acosta "bothering him," according to the complaint.
Acosta said he wasn't bothering anyone, and he asked the name of his accuser.
"Without warning, (Owen) Pena grabbed Acosta by the neck and threw Acosta to the ground," according to the lawsuit, which also accuses Owen Pena of pushing his knee against Acosta's face and grinding Acosta's face into the asphalt.
Acosta asked what he had done and why the officer was doing this.
Owen Pena made a profane, racial statement, according to the complaint, and then Owen Pena sprayed Mace into Acosta's eyes. The officer then dragged Acosta to his police car.
Acosta said Owen Pena laughed when Acosta said he needed treatment for his eyes.
"As a result of the incident, Acosta received abrasions, bruises, swelling and a wound to the left side of his face that has left a permanent scar," according to the complaint.
In both cases, District Judges Joseph Rich and Grant Foutz have decided against hearing the case. In Acosta's case, Judge William Birdsall of Farmington was assigned to the case on Friday.
No court dates have yet been set.
Staff Writer, The Gallup Independent
GALLUP — Lawsuits for police brutality have been filed against the Gallup Police Department, a Gallup police officer and a former Gallup police officer.
Gallup Officer Owen Pena and former officer Daron Overman, who filed a lawsuit last week against the police department for discipline issues, are under fire in two lawsuits charging them with using excessive force in two different incidents of arrest.
Ramah attorney William Stripp, who filed the two lawsuits against the officers, said he was amused at Saturday's Independent, in which a story appeared about Overman and Pena suing the police department for being disciplined.
"Both of these officers have displayed a pattern of misconduct," Stripp said.
Stripp actually filed the lawsuits Aug. 8 and Aug. 9. The Independent learned about them Monday.
Gallup Police Chief Daniel Kneale, who started as chief Aug. 7, said he doesn't know anything about these lawsuits because he wasn't around when the incidents allegedly took place.
The lawsuit against Overman, which also names as defendants officers Gerald Tholund and Anthony Ashley, dates back to an incident on Aug. 25, 1998. Plaintiffs are Jennifer Jones of Gallup and her baby, Joseph.
The complaint alleges that Ashley attempted to stop the vehicle driven by Daniel Pena, who is the father of Joseph, on Interstate 40. Jones and her baby were passengers in Daniel Pena's car. The reason for the stop was that the vehicle Pena drove had an expired license plate tag.
The lawsuit claims that Daniel Pena wanted to take Jones and the baby home before stopping for police because on April 13, 1998, an encounter with former Lt. Calvin Wiggins ended with Jones getting her front teeth knocked out. This made Jones and Daniel Pena afraid of the police, according to the complaint.
Ashley pursued the car, and Overman joined in the pursuit. At some point, the lawsuit alleges that Overman drove up next to the car and noticed Jones and the baby in the car.
Daniel Pena exited the interstate at the west interchange and drove into a dead-end street, at which point, Overman and Ashley exited their police cars. Daniel Pena started to make a U-turn.
"As (Daniel) Pena turned his car around, Overman began to shoot at (Daniel) Pena's car," according to the lawsuit.
A pursuit began again on Highway 66, with Tholund joining in. At Highway 66 and Dean Street, Daniel Pena's car stalled. At this point, the lawsuit alleges that Overman and other officers jumped out of their police cars and smashed the windshield of the car with their nightsticks and attempted to drag the suspect out of the car.
"When (Daniel) Pena started his car and put it into reverse, Tholund, who was aware that Jones and infant were in Pena's car, fired multiple rounds at (Daniel) Pena's car," according to the lawsuit.
Daniel Pena drove Jones and the baby to a nearby trailer park, stopped and ran. Police apprehended him and arrested him.
Stripp, whose lawsuit was filed on behalf of Jones and the infant, said in an interview Monday that police could have killed Jones and the baby by firing at the car. And they knew the baby was in the car, Stripp said.
"Who are the ones committing child endangerment in a case like this?" Stripp said.
He added that an expired tag is no reason to chase a vehicle. "In typical cowboy-and-Indian fashion, they turned it into a wild chase and a shoot-em-up," Stripp said.
Officer's side
The lawsuit doesn't tell the whole story, said Overman, who spoke about the case in an interview since he no longer works for the police department.
Overman said he didn't see the baby in the car until Daniel Pena's car stalled and he exited his police car.
During the actual chase, "He tried running me off the road," Overman said. "I shot at the tires."
When the car stalled, Overman ran to Pena's car and tried to pull him out of the car. At this point, Daniel Pena backed up, with Overman still hanging on to the car.
"He dragged me several feet," Overman said.
Daniel Pena then almost ran over Tholund, who was also on foot. Tholund shot at the tires, Overman said.
They arrested him for aggravated assault on a police officer and other charges, including child endangerment, Overman said.
In the case Stripp filed against Owen Pena, plaintiff Luis Alejandro Acosta accused Pena of police brutality.
The case alleges that on May 15, 2000, Acosta stopped at a gas station on Coal Avenue to make a telephone call. Owen Pena pulled into the gas station and told Acosta that someone had made a report of Acosta "bothering him," according to the complaint.
Acosta said he wasn't bothering anyone, and he asked the name of his accuser.
"Without warning, (Owen) Pena grabbed Acosta by the neck and threw Acosta to the ground," according to the lawsuit, which also accuses Owen Pena of pushing his knee against Acosta's face and grinding Acosta's face into the asphalt.
Acosta asked what he had done and why the officer was doing this.
Owen Pena made a profane, racial statement, according to the complaint, and then Owen Pena sprayed Mace into Acosta's eyes. The officer then dragged Acosta to his police car.
Acosta said Owen Pena laughed when Acosta said he needed treatment for his eyes.
"As a result of the incident, Acosta received abrasions, bruises, swelling and a wound to the left side of his face that has left a permanent scar," according to the complaint.
In both cases, District Judges Joseph Rich and Grant Foutz have decided against hearing the case. In Acosta's case, Judge William Birdsall of Farmington was assigned to the case on Friday.
No court dates have yet been set.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
