PDA

View Full Version : Federal Jury awards 55k in CT


Edward Peruta
07-04-2011, 3:17 AM
The Jury awarded damages

06/17/2011 76 JURY VERDICT For Plaintiff Against Defendant in the Amount of $55,000.00 in compensatory damages. (Gothers, M.) (Entered: 06/22/2011)

06/22/2011 77 JUDGMENT entered in favor of Felipe Rodriguez against William Ciccosanti in the amount of $55,000.00 for compensatory damages, plus statutory interest from the date the Judgment is entered.

Reports also suggest that in addition to the compensatory damages and interest, the court will be awarding Attorneys Fees to the Plaintiff.

Read more:

http://nhregister.com/articles/2011/...b306089445.txt
http://www.scribd.com/doc/59153540/R...-vs-West-Haven

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

************************************************** *****

FELIPE RODRIGUEZ CIVIL NO. 3:08CV00089 (AWT)

V.

CITY OF WEST HAVEN, OFFICER WILLIAM CICCOSANTI AND OFFICER WILLIAM OAKLEY, in their individual capacities

MAY 13, 2008

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
1. This is an action for money damages to redress the deprivation by the defendant and co-defendants of rights secured to the plaintiff by the constitution and laws of the United States and the State of Connecticut. The defendant and codefendants, without probable cause, unlawfully detained, searched, harassed, accused, arrested, charged and falsely made statements against the plaintiff.

2. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under the provisions of §§1331 and 1343(3) of Title 28 and Secs. 1983 and 1988 of Title 42 of the United States Code, and of the pendent jurisdiction of this Court with respect to other causes of action available under state law.

3. During all times mentioned in this complaint the plaintiff was and still is a resident of the United States residing in New Haven, Connecticut and is of full age, and is Hispanic of race.

4. During all times mentioned in this complaint, the defendant, the City of West Haven,was and is a municipal corporation duly chartered as such under the laws of the State of Connecticut.

5. At all times mentioned, the co-defendant, William Ciccosanti, was a police officer employed by the defendant, the West Haven Police Department and was the responding officer on duty at the time of the incident. Co-defendant Ciccosanti is Caucasian of race and white of color and is being sued in his individual capacity.

6. At all times mentioned, the co-defendant, William Oakley, was a police officer employed by the defendant, the West Haven Police Department and was the responding officer on duty at the time of the incident. Co-defendant Oakley is Caucasian of race and white of color and is being sued in his individual capacity.

7. On or about October 13, 2005, the plaintiff was knowingly, yet wrongfully arrested by the defendants for Breach of Peace in the Second Degree, Threatening in the Second Degree and Reckless Endangerment in the Second Degree.

8. Just prior to his arrest on the aforementioned date, the plaintiff’s neighbor, Anthony Clarke, was verbally challenging the plaintiff about where his car was parked. It should be noted that plaintiff’s vehicle was legally parked on a public street, but which happened to be in front of Mr. Clarke’s residence.

9. Plaintiff was thereafter arrested by the defendant and co-defendants for alleged brandishing a weapon, which the plaintiff, in point of fact, never removed from the secure location he had it within his home.

10. The plaintiff had a valid Connecticut gun permit for said weapon.

11. In December of 2006, a nolle was entered as to the all of the false charges brought against plaintiff by the defendant and co-defendants

12. Plaintiff was thereafter forced to hire a lawyer and defend himself against completely false and unfounded charges.

13. During all times mentioned in this complaint, the defendant and co-defendants acted under color and pretense of law and engaged in the improper and illegal conduct as aforedescribed, causing severe injury to the plaintiff, and in the process of depriving the plaintiff of the right, privileges and immunities secured to him by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, as well as the laws of the United States.

14. The acts and omissions of the defendant and co-defendants hereinafter described constituted a deprivation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights, privileges and immunities, and while these acts were carried out under color of law, they had no justification or excuse in law, and were instead gratuitous, illegal, improper and totally unrelated to any activity in which the municipal law enforcement officers should have appropriately and legally engaged in the course of protecting persons or property or insuring civil order.

15. In the manner described herein, the defendant the City of West Haven, which has a history, pattern and practice of depriving Hispanics and other minorities of their rights, maintained and condoned a custom of depriving individuals, such as the plaintiff, of their constitutional rights, through its traditions, policies, ordinances, regulations and decisions officially adopted and promulgated by and through the department.

16. The defendant and co-defendants deprived the plaintiff of his right to be free from warrantless arrest, arrest without probable cause, unreasonable arrest and malicious prosecution. All these rights are secured to the plaintiff by the provisions of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Title 42 of the United States Code, Section 1983 and 1988; and the State of Connecticut, Art. 1, Sections 1 and 7 respectively.

17. In the manner herein described, all of the aforementioned defendant and co-defendants subjected the plaintiff to false arrest, unreasonable detention, denial of substantive due process of law, and denial of equal protection under law. All these rights are secured to the plaintiff by the provisions of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and by Title 42 of the United States Code §§1983 and 1988 and State of Connecticut, Article 1, Sections 1 and 7 respectively.

COUNT TWO:
1-15. Paragraphs 1 through 15 of the First Count are hereby incorporated by reference and made Paragraphs 1 through 15 of the Second Count, as if fully set forth herein.

16. The defendant, through its agents, servants and/or employees, subjected the plaintiff's person to false arrest based upon blatantly false and baseless accusations, which, upon a thorough investigation, would have been decreed as such.

17. In addition, the aforementioned defendant, through the aforedescribed extreme and outrageous acts of its agents, servants and/or employees, along with the individual co-defendants, were responsible for causing the intentional infliction of emotional distress upon the plaintiff as they knew, or should have known, or should have reasonably anticipated that their actions, in wrongfully accusing, detaining, charging, arresting, incarcerating and subjecting the plaintiff to the criminal justice system as an accused criminal, would cause him to suffer severe emotional, psychological, as well as physical harm to his person.

COUNT THREE:
1-15. Paragraphs 1 through 15 of the First Count are hereby incorporated by reference and made Paragraphs 1 through 15 of the Third Count, as if fully set forth herein.

16. In addition, said aforementioned defendant through the aforedescribed acts of its agents, servants and/or employees, along with each of the individual codefendants, were responsible for causing the negligent infliction of emotional distress upon the plaintiff as they knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should well have known, that their actions in wrongfully and publicly accusing, detaining, assaulting, charging, arresting, incarcerating and subjecting the plaintiff to the criminal justice system as an accused criminal would and did cause him to suffer severe emotional, psychological, as well as physical harm to his person.

COUNT FOUR:
1-15. Paragraphs 1 through 15 of the First Count are hereby incorporated by reference and made Paragraphs 1 through 15 of the Fourth Count, as if fully set forth herein.

16. The charges were issued against the plaintiff by the State’s Attorney’s office because of the direct request of the individual co-defendants. 17. The multiple charges of criminal conduct which were brought against the plaintiff were done so without any probable cause whatsoever.

18. As there was no legal basis to establish probable cause for the arrest of the plaintiff with respect to the aforementioned charges, the individual codefendants’ actions were malicious in nature.

19. In light of the aforedescribed conduct, the actions of the individual co-defendants constituted the tort of malicious prosecution.

WHEREFORE, in light of all of the foregoing, the plaintiff claims judgment against the defendant and co-defendants jointly and severely as follows:


a. Compensatory damages in an amount this Court shall consider just and reasonable;

b. Punitive damages against the defendants and co-defendants in an amount this Court shall consider to be just and reasonable.

c. Attorney's fees and reimbursement of the costs related to the bringing of this action;

d. Such other relief as this Court shall consider to be fair and equitable.

PLAINTIFF, FELIPE RODRIGUEZ

anthonyca
07-04-2011, 3:41 AM
Wow. So the cops themselves have to pay this? Good post.

We need to make the politicians pay for illegal laws.

The War Wagon
07-04-2011, 4:15 AM
We need to make the politicians pay for illegal laws.

OH that such were the case! The current crop in CONgress would be paying this much to EVERY constituent - per DAY - for the privilege of, "representing" us. :43:

From your lips to God's EARS!

oldsmoboat
07-04-2011, 4:54 AM
Wow. So the cops themselves have to pay this? Good post.

We need to make the politicians pay for illegal laws.

"The $55,000 finding will be paid for in part by the city’s insurance carrier, and in part by the city, Nietzel said. The cost breakdown was not immediately available."

http://nhregister.com/articles/2011/07/01/news/metro/doc4e0e3a805ba8b306089445.txt

choprzrul
07-04-2011, 5:03 AM
These decisions will have teeth and a real effect when the courts start taking a % of the offending officer's pension. I'm thinking 10-25% per officer per incident depending upon severity of civil rights violation.

.

ccmc
07-04-2011, 5:09 AM
These decisions will have teeth and a real effect when the courts start taking a % of the offending officer's pension. I'm thinking 10-25% per officer per incident depending upon severity of civil rights violation.

.

That is an excellent point, and should be applied across the board to all politicians that enact laws determined to be unconstitutional. Doubt we'll ever see that happen though.

jeep7081
07-04-2011, 5:25 AM
Nice post.

uyoga
07-04-2011, 7:19 AM
Correct. Until the person individually responsible for the intentional act is forced to individually respond in damages, these incidents will continue to occurr.

Ordinary negligence, in my opinion, (as long as it doesn't rise to the level of gross negligence) can continue to be covered by insurance.

Kid Stanislaus
07-04-2011, 7:37 AM
As I read the article Rodriquez does not appear to be all that innocent. If the facts presented are true then its fairly obvious he's lying about his language skills. I'd bet my next paycheck he was guilty as charged.

r3dn3ck wrote: "ahh another one that convicts based on assumption. Well, the thing is, he's not guilty so sayeth the court. Read the part of law that says "innocent until proven guilty". The cop did the wrong here."

Please address the problem I mentioned with his alleged poor language skills. The guy's a liar, at a minimum.

r3dn3ck
07-04-2011, 8:15 AM
ahh another one that convicts based on assumption. Well, the thing is, he's not guilty so sayeth the court. Read the part of law that says "innocent until proven guilty". The cop did the wrong here.

fleegman
07-04-2011, 10:14 AM
I automatically assume the police are lying whenever ANYONE is charged with public nuisance/disorderly conduct/recklass behavior, obstructiong/resisting an officer/assault on an officer. There are far far too many cases of people charged with these crimes, only to have them tossed "after video surfaces of the incident" showing the citizen did nothing wrong. Google the police beating of Maryland student John McKenna by police. He was savagely beaten by at least 3 cops who then charged the 21 year old with multiple felonies to cover-up their thuggish behavior. Too bad for the cops everyting was caught on tape, including what came before. If not for the tape, this kids life would probably be ruined. The FBI is now investigating.

How many innocent people over decades have had their lives ruined by these lying thugs? We'll never know, but it is clear there are far too many of them.

And if you think these are just a "few bad apples", then go over to the forums of officer.com or policeone.com and read what police officers are saying everyday. Regarding the videotaping of LEO by citizens, one cop seriously suggests shooting camera wielding citizens and then later claiming you thought the camera was a gun. Then, he suggests, citizens will "wise up" and leave the LEO "alone". Here is the link:

http://tinyurl.com/3hb9q69

lrdchivalry
07-04-2011, 2:27 PM
I automatically assume the police are lying whenever ANYONE is charged with public nuisance/disorderly conduct/recklass behavior, obstructiong/resisting an officer/assault on an officer. There are far far too many cases of people charged with these crimes, only to have them tossed "after video surfaces of the incident" showing the citizen did nothing wrong. Google the police beating of Maryland student John McKenna by police. He was savagely beaten by at least 3 cops who then charged the 21 year old with multiple felonies to cover-up their thuggish behavior. Too bad for the cops everyting was caught on tape, including what came before. If not for the tape, this kids life would probably be ruined. The FBI is now investigating.

How many innocent people over decades have had their lives ruined by these lying thugs? We'll never know, but it is clear there are far too many of them.

And if you think these are just a "few bad apples", then go over to the forums of officer.com or policeone.com and read what police officers are saying everyday. Regarding the videotaping of LEO by citizens, one cop seriously suggests shooting camera wielding citizens and then later claiming you thought the camera was a gun. Then, he suggests, citizens will "wise up" and leave the LEO "alone". Here is the link:

http://tinyurl.com/3hb9q69

I read the responses on policeone.com and was not suprised. The usual excuse I hear to justify these their attitudes towards the public is "officer safety".

My response to the comments was the following:
"The hypocrisy from some of the officers here is shameful with one even advocating the murder of members of the public (and please don't try the excuse of "where did I advocate the murder of citizens" game,I know what the insinuation of "When enough of THIS happens:*BANG*"I thought he was pointing a gun at me."
They might start wising up and leaving us alone." means). It's no wonder the public no longer trusts leo's. Leo's love to use the "if you have nothing to hide then you should have no problem with me searching your car" line when they don't have PC to search a car, well, if you have nothing to hide then you should have no problem with someone filming you. Leo's use camera's to protect themselves, allow shows like COPS or Police POV to film them with no complaints but want to balk at private citizens filming them. Remember we are public servants and when we start thinking that we are above public scrutiny (which seems to be the case based on comments to this story)then we have started down the road to a police state and violate the very oath to defend the Constitution we all took."

Some leo's may not agree with my response but if we look at the abuses popping up on youtube or reports generated by organizations such as the CATO Institute a pattern of abuse is emerging (IMHO).

CCWFacts
07-04-2011, 2:34 PM
Wow. So the cops themselves have to pay this?

No...

"The $55,000 finding will be paid for in part by the city’s insurance carrier, and in part by the city, Nietzel said. The cost breakdown was not immediately available."

http://nhregister.com/articles/2011/07/01/news/metro/doc4e0e3a805ba8b306089445.txt

Exactly. All cops (and really any employee, public or private sector who has liability risks) have liability insurance coverage as part of their employment agreements. Think about doctors for example: they all have malpractice insurance through their employers. Same type of thing. The insurance company (and therefore, indirectly, the taxpayers) eat it. Would be nice if there were some consequences to the individual officers, but there won't be.

scarville
07-04-2011, 2:56 PM
And if you think these are just a "few bad apples", then go over to the forums of officer.com or policeone.com and read what police officers are saying everyday. Regarding the videotaping of LEO by citizens, one cop seriously suggests shooting camera wielding citizens and then later claiming you thought the camera was a gun. Then, he suggests, citizens will "wise up" and leave the LEO "alone". Here is the link:

http://tinyurl.com/3hb9q69
I'd like to say I was surprised by that but I'm not anymore.

IBTL/D

wash
07-04-2011, 3:35 PM
I'm not sure that taking away pensions would fly but if you could take away the vesting in the pension, that would be interesting.

On the down side it would keep lousy cops on the street (or hopefully behind a desk) longer but on the positive side, cops would have to learn how to respect citizens rights or else forget about ever being able to retire.

frankm
07-04-2011, 6:52 PM
I automatically assume the police are lying whenever ANYONE is charged with public nuisance/disorderly conduct/recklass behavior, obstructiong/resisting an officer/assault on an officer. There are far far too many cases of people charged with these crimes, only to have them tossed "after video surfaces of the incident" showing the citizen did nothing wrong. Google the police beating of Maryland student John McKenna by police. He was savagely beaten by at least 3 cops who then charged the 21 year old with multiple felonies to cover-up their thuggish behavior. Too bad for the cops everyting was caught on tape, including what came before. If not for the tape, this kids life would probably be ruined. The FBI is now investigating.

How many innocent people over decades have had their lives ruined by these lying thugs? We'll never know, but it is clear there are far too many of them.

And if you think these are just a "few bad apples", then go over to the forums of officer.com or policeone.com and read what police officers are saying everyday. Regarding the videotaping of LEO by citizens, one cop seriously suggests shooting camera wielding citizens and then later claiming you thought the camera was a gun. Then, he suggests, citizens will "wise up" and leave the LEO "alone". Here is the link:
http://tinyurl.com/3hb9q69

The disorderly conduct arrest is a common tactic when someone is just a general a-hole in public. Basically, it comes down to this. You go on a call, someone reports a general jerk-off spouting off bs to women, or whatever. So you get there and he's not very ameliable. So you arrest him, just to get him off the street. He's in the holding cell for a couple hours. Problem is solved. No more general jerk-off in public. Were his rights violated? You betcha. Did it solve the complaitants problem. You betcha. Who cares? No one. Cause the arrestee is usually some poor guy who expects that from the cops and doesn't pursue legal recourse. I've done it a few times riding with regular officers. Sometimes there is no complaintant, and the officers do this on their own, sweep the streets of the riff-raff, this is called by many names, but we called it "dirtbag patrol". This is when you don't have much to do and you zero in on your local riff-raff and see what you can drum up. Usually, someone is drunk, high, or whatever. Do the neighbors appreciate it? Yes. Does it violate their rights? Maybe.