(PA) Hirko civil trial: Bizarre rule change!

[hammer4nc]

For those not familiar, John Hirko was an alleged small-time drug dealer killed in a SWAT raid on his home several years ago. After being shot by police, his body was left to burn in the fire started by a "flash-bang" device, that police inserted through a window.

In a civil lawsuit that has been going on for several months, Hirko's family, girlfriend, and landlord are suing for upwards of $1 Billion dollars, for civil rights violations. Aside from virtually bankrupting the defendants and jurisdictions involved, a liability finding could have a chilling effect on the use of dynamic entries; esp. "no-knock" warrants.

Here's the twist: After deliberating for about a week, the jury informs the judge that its deadlocked, 10-2 (without saying which way the vote goes). Apparently the judge asks both sides lawyers if they will accept a 10-2 decision rather than a unanimous decision, and they agree!

I've never heard anything like this before, but I'm not a lawyer. Is this type of rule-change common?

In any event, with the lower standard, a decision looks imminent. Stay tuned...

Link: http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-a1-2g5-ollmar02,0,6007364.story?coll=all-newslocal-hed

 

[El Tejon]

This is a federal §1983, right?

 

[hammer4nc]

Jury delivers decision today...

El Tejon, I didn't know the answer to your question until today. It is, apparently 42 USC~1983.

Here's the verdict sheet...link: http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-questionsanswered,0,2004392.htmlstory?coll=all-newslocal-hed

There's 58 questions, too long to post directly. A quick summation of the jury's verdict indicates finding of liability (excessive force) for at least two of the swat guys, plus failure to supervise (see questions 33-36).

Many questions unanswered? Apparently the same jury will award damages, though its not entirely clear what the outcome will be.

My editorial comment: Expanded use of dynamic entries, and no-knock warrants is wholeheartedly supported by most leos. Obviously, it is stock and trade for the swat/sert squads, they will never willingly scale back use of these tactics. If this case sets a trend (i.e., with a large damage award), it will be because liability insurance gets too expensive for many jurisdictions to afford. Hence smaller depts. will disband due to lack of funding.

Penalty phase will determine the ultimate impact of this case.

 

[Amish_Bill]

There are some times when that type of entry might be warranted. There are also LOTS of times when this approach is not called for. Anything that scales back the concept of police just being another type of military unit is good.

I can't wait to hear the final 'Cliff Notes' version of this.