Warren
Member
Link
I would expect your taxes to go up as the payouts are going to be immense. Hopefully 100 million or more when it is all over.
After the lawers get paid that will leave about $25.62 for each plaintiff.
original story
July 29, 2005, 12:46PM
Judge rips Kmart raid's mass arrests
Calling actions unconstitutional, she rules 10 suits can now proceed
By HARVEY RICE
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle
Calling the operation "almost totalitarian," a federal judge says a Houston police plan that led to 278 arrests in a Kmart parking lot almost three years ago was unconstitutional.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Nancy Atlas allows all 10 lawsuits filed in the wake of the Aug. 18, 2002, mass arrest, and a smaller operation the previous night, to proceed.
The "plan to detain all persons ... with no regard for the existence of open businesses and their customers, is facially unconstitutional," Atlas wrote in an opinion made public this week.
The sweep by police was planned to crack down on illegal street racing, but the lawsuits contend that most of those arrested in the parking lot in the 8400 block of Westheimer were innocent Kmart customers or diners at a nearby Sonic restaurant. Police had arrested 25 people the previous night outside a nearby James Coney Island restaurant.
Most of those arrested were charged with trespassing or curfew violations, but no one was accused of street racing.
In response to public outrage, the city dropped all charges and the Houston Police Department conducted the largest internal investigation in its history, resulting in disciplinary action against 32 officers. Capt. Mark Aguirre was fired for his handling of the raid.
The lawsuits accuse police of brandishing pistols and shotguns, verbally abusing customers and knocking food from diners' hands and off their tables.
The lawsuits allege that those arrested were forced to sit for hours while plastic cuffs cut into their arms, and some people soiled their clothes when denied permission to use restrooms.
Atlas' ruling came in response to the city of Houston's request to be dropped from the lawsuits, contending that the plaintiffs failed to show that the arrests resulted from official policy.
Former Police Chief C.O. Bradford is named in all of the lawsuits, which seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, but the names of other officers and city officials listed as defendants vary among the suits.
'A signal victory'
Joseph Lanza, an attorney representing more than 60 of the more than 100 plaintiffs, called Atlas' ruling "a signal victory for the plaintiffs because it continues to allow them to press their claims in federal court."
Senior Assistant City Attorney Robert Cambrice said it was merely another step in a long process. He predicted the lawsuits will never reach trial.
"When you look at the total picture, the city is still in great shape," Cambrice said.
Atlas threw out a number of the lawsuits' claims, but allowed the plaintiffs to go forward with allegations that Bradford knew about the mass arrest plan, known as the "Jackson plan" for the officer who devised it.
"It reflected an unjustified, almost totalitarian, regime of suspicionless stops and was completely inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment rights Americans hold dear," Atlas wrote, referring to the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.
She also allowed them to go forward with an accusation that a police "zero-tolerance" policy customarily allowed improper arrests and that Bradford knew about it.
Bradford has denied knowing about the plan or the policy.
Cambrice said no one has testified Bradford knew about the Jackson plan or that the zero-tolerance policy was understood to mean improper arrests.
I would expect your taxes to go up as the payouts are going to be immense. Hopefully 100 million or more when it is all over.
After the lawers get paid that will leave about $25.62 for each plaintiff.
original story
July 29, 2005, 12:46PM
Judge rips Kmart raid's mass arrests
Calling actions unconstitutional, she rules 10 suits can now proceed
By HARVEY RICE
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle
Calling the operation "almost totalitarian," a federal judge says a Houston police plan that led to 278 arrests in a Kmart parking lot almost three years ago was unconstitutional.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Nancy Atlas allows all 10 lawsuits filed in the wake of the Aug. 18, 2002, mass arrest, and a smaller operation the previous night, to proceed.
The "plan to detain all persons ... with no regard for the existence of open businesses and their customers, is facially unconstitutional," Atlas wrote in an opinion made public this week.
The sweep by police was planned to crack down on illegal street racing, but the lawsuits contend that most of those arrested in the parking lot in the 8400 block of Westheimer were innocent Kmart customers or diners at a nearby Sonic restaurant. Police had arrested 25 people the previous night outside a nearby James Coney Island restaurant.
Most of those arrested were charged with trespassing or curfew violations, but no one was accused of street racing.
In response to public outrage, the city dropped all charges and the Houston Police Department conducted the largest internal investigation in its history, resulting in disciplinary action against 32 officers. Capt. Mark Aguirre was fired for his handling of the raid.
The lawsuits accuse police of brandishing pistols and shotguns, verbally abusing customers and knocking food from diners' hands and off their tables.
The lawsuits allege that those arrested were forced to sit for hours while plastic cuffs cut into their arms, and some people soiled their clothes when denied permission to use restrooms.
Atlas' ruling came in response to the city of Houston's request to be dropped from the lawsuits, contending that the plaintiffs failed to show that the arrests resulted from official policy.
Former Police Chief C.O. Bradford is named in all of the lawsuits, which seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, but the names of other officers and city officials listed as defendants vary among the suits.
'A signal victory'
Joseph Lanza, an attorney representing more than 60 of the more than 100 plaintiffs, called Atlas' ruling "a signal victory for the plaintiffs because it continues to allow them to press their claims in federal court."
Senior Assistant City Attorney Robert Cambrice said it was merely another step in a long process. He predicted the lawsuits will never reach trial.
"When you look at the total picture, the city is still in great shape," Cambrice said.
Atlas threw out a number of the lawsuits' claims, but allowed the plaintiffs to go forward with allegations that Bradford knew about the mass arrest plan, known as the "Jackson plan" for the officer who devised it.
"It reflected an unjustified, almost totalitarian, regime of suspicionless stops and was completely inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment rights Americans hold dear," Atlas wrote, referring to the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.
She also allowed them to go forward with an accusation that a police "zero-tolerance" policy customarily allowed improper arrests and that Bradford knew about it.
Bradford has denied knowing about the plan or the policy.
Cambrice said no one has testified Bradford knew about the Jackson plan or that the zero-tolerance policy was understood to mean improper arrests.
Why on earth is that a defense? Hey, CAPTAIN Bradford, the ship went down on your watch. You are BY DEFINITION responsible. 