Students to receive payments in drug raid settlement

[Pilgrim]

As I remember, this incident in 2003 caused considerable comment in THR or TFL.

Pilgrim

Students to receive payments in drug raid settlement
The Associated Press

CHARLESTON — Students searched during a 2003 drug raid by police at Stratford High School are eligible for compensation of between $6,000 and $12,000 apiece, now that a federal judge has approved a $1.6 million class-action settlement.

U.S. District Judge Patrick Michael Duffy approved the settlement Monday in a lawsuit filed against the Berkeley County School District and the Goose Creek Police Department by families of students affected by the raid.

Surveillance videotapes captured the raid in which officers drew their guns, ordered students to lie on the floor and used a dog to search them for illegal drugs. Police found no drugs and no arrests were made. About 140 students were at the school at the time.

The students will split $1.2 million and their attorneys' will receive the remaining $400,000.

Students involved in the drug sweep must file claims by July 28, said Marlon Kimpson, one of the attorneys for the students. A court-appointed claims administrator will determine which students are eligible for the money.

"It is now incumbent on the students to take action and have their claim considered," Kimpson said.

The exact amount each student receives will depend on the final number of claims.

Since the raid, the school district and the Goose Creek Police Department have changed their policies for drug sweeps.

"You must conduct drug searches according to the U.S. Constitution," Kimpson said. "This settlement and this class-action lawsuit is notice to police officers and school officials across the nation that students don't shed their constitutional rights merely by entering a schoolhouse door."

Kimpson said many of the firm's clients have said they plan to use the money to pay for college or additional education.

The case drew national attention as a result of the videotapes. The Rev. Jesse Jackson led a protest march amid accusations blacks were unfairly targeted.

Following an investigation, state Attorney General Henry McMaster called it "highly inappropriate" for police to draw their guns but concluded their actions did not warrant criminal charges.

Goose Creek is about 20 miles northwest of Charleston.

 

[Seminole]

Sadly, neither the Principal, School Board, nor the Goose Creek Police Department will pay the price for their "mistake." Instead, the taxpayers will have money taken out of their pockets because of the unconstitutional conduct of the police department and school. Think of the irony--the parents of these students (and in some cases the students themselves) will pay higher taxes to pay for the money distributed to the students by the settlement.

 

[kel]

I know I sound like a broken record

Why aren't those officers in jail, their lives ruined? They are going to keep doing it if they can get away with it, there has to be a penalty for the men on the ground. They need to be too scared to even try this type of thing.

Following an investigation, state Attorney General Henry McMaster called it "highly inappropriate" for police to draw their guns but concluded their actions did not warrant criminal charges.

Incumbent advantage? Who elected this guy?

What state was this in?

 

[Ira Aten]

Quote from Seminole:
"Sadly, neither the Principal, School Board, nor the Goose Creek Police Department will pay the price for their "mistake." Instead, the taxpayers will have money taken out of their pockets because of the unconstitutional conduct of the police department and school. Think of the irony--the parents of these students (and in some cases the students themselves) will pay higher taxes to pay for the money distributed to the students by the settlement.




Dear Seminole:

I disagree that it is sad. I think it is deserved. Here is why.

The tax payers in that area deserve to be punished financially for their personal failures to rein in an idiotic police state.

They have allowed officers who thrive on terrorizing people by pointing guns at them for no legitimate or constitutioanlly legal reason, while granting them the protection of office. And they have elected a shool board that would allow absolute idiots to teach and administer the schools.

The officers should never be allowed to own a firearm again, and naturally, should all be barred from working for the city even as a garbage collector. The school employees invovled, should all be fired.

The cops should all be in jail for approximately twenty years for pointing a firearm at a person who was in no way, a danger to them nor even a reasonable suspect of a crime!

Keep in mind, I pay property taxes in a very highly taxed district in "Robin Hood" Texas. And since I and fellow taxpayers fund those schools, and I fund these officers, I have a duty to at least pay enough attention to my community to make sure and elect county and city employees that have a clue as to what nation we live in.

Maybe those lazy people will wake up to what they are allowing in their community. After all, they are the boss. They just haven't been paying attention to their employees, and the damage their employees have done to others.

 

[TallPine]

Money can never replace the sense of violation and innocence lost ...

Following an investigation, state Attorney General Henry McMaster called it "highly inappropriate" for police to draw their guns but concluded their actions did not warrant criminal charges.

Yeah, but for the rest of us, drawing and pointing a gun when it is "highly inappropriate" is called felony assault with a deadly weapon

I guess the kids are just lucky one of the cops didn't have a ND and kill one of them

 

[MechAg94]

The school board should take action at least.

 

[kel]

Yeah, but for the rest of us, drawing and pointing a gun when it is "highly inappropriate" is called felony assault with a deadly weapon

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Imagine the carnage if everybody had the impunity that cops enjoy, holding people (kids in school, in this case) at gunpoint, occasional ND deaths resulting in a slap on the wrist and the taxpayers footing the bill, etc. That would be...oh wait, that's what the antis want isn't it? Since WE aren't responsible enough.
When I was in high school we had several bomb threats and bomb dogs out every other day for a couple weeks (one of the teachers taught his students how to make pipe bombs...some did). There weren't any guns drawn, any raids. Occasionally we'd do a fire-drill out of the school, sometimes they'd quietly search the lockers with dogs during classes. They would excuse the student who's locker contained a bomb from class and quietly escort him out of the school (no, no, they didn't shoot him once he got outside either ). I guess everything now calls for a full-on tacticool raid.

 

[JJohnston015]

Good thing none of the perps were "professional".

 

[Lupinus]

I say we write it into law that whenever something like this happens and a lawsuit is the result that the funds are drawn from those involved (officers, school board, etc) personally for either allowing it to happen or participating in it. This way the answer can not be to simply raise taxes. Also I think every last one of them should be put on trial for the same crime we all would be put on for. I like a lot of cops. I understand mistakes happen. I understand cops to do their job need to be given more leeway and authority then your average citizen in an average situation. But it is going to far and can not be allowed any longer.

 

[Pilgrim]

I say we write it into law that whenever something like this happens and a lawsuit is the result that the funds are drawn from those involved (officers, school board, etc) personally for either allowing it to happen or participating in it. This way the answer can not be to simply raise taxes.

While a wonderful idea, the practicality of the action is defeated from the start. California's Government Code, for example, protects from liability a government official or employee acting within the scope of his employment. A good idea, otherwise you wouldn't be able to get anyone in government to do anything if they feared punishing legal awards for doing their job.

Awards for general damages are usually paid by the entity with the most money. So, while you think you are hammering the "jack booted thugs", all you are recovering from is the employing agency.

In those rare instances where punitive damages are assessed against individuals, in just about all cases the employing government body will pay because it doesn't want to deal with the lawsuits from their employees for not being trained properly or supervised properly in the action that caused them to be assessed punitive damages.

And finally, if government employees find they are vulnerable to lawsuit for their official duties, they will take the necessary steps to limit their financial exposure. They will keep their homesteaded properties heavily mortgaged. Monies for their children's educations will be in trust funds. They will avoid accumulating personal property that has high cash value.

Likewise, if you decide to go after their pension funds, note that OJ Simpson is the classic example of a person whose entire worth is tied up in pension funds. OJ receives pension payments from his days as a professional football player and an actor. Those pension payments are exempt from levy to pay off the $33 million wrongful death awards granted to the Goldman and Brown families.

Pilgrim

 

[kel]

you wouldn't be able to get anyone in government to do anything if they feared punishing legal awards for doing their job.

Doing their job? Of course they should be to afraid to do these things, it's not their job, it's what they personally want to do. They should be held personally responsible. Of course the police should be afraid to attack people who have committed no crime!

 

[Lupinus]

their job is to arrest criminals and help the public. Not intimidate harass or pull guns on innocent people, and sometimes shoot them. If being able to be held personally responsible both financially and criminally, for their actions on duty or not it cuts the amount of people willing to be cops I see no problem. Weeds out the power trips with a badge and jbts right off the bat leaving only the good cops who do a great job and provide the citizens with a wonderful service.

 

[Dravur]

or.....

it weeds out the good cop who doesn't want to put his family through a lawsuit for doing his job. Maybe that way, we get all the dregs of the cop world who don't care and the only thing that would be awarded would be the whiskey bottles and used Cheeto's bags.

I'd rather have the good cop on the street. but that's just me.

 

[DKSuddeth]

'nuff said!

 

[kel]

it weeds out the good cop who doesn't want to put his family through a lawsuit for doing his job. Maybe that way, we get all the dregs of the cop world who don't care and the only thing that would be awarded would be the whiskey bottles and used Cheeto's bags.

Good cops don't assault people at random. Good cops don't charge people when they know it won't stick because they personally disapprove of a specific sort of behavior. Good cops know the law in their state because they don't want to hurt innocent people. Good cops will be exonerated by the judicial system same as everybody else.

Exempting them from the law and lowering the bar is not the same as forcing them to come up and meet it. All cops will not enforce a law unless they know they can get away with it. We can force all of them to be good cops, dregs or not, if we choose to hold them accountable for their actions. The dregs are not a threat if they are in jail, just like everybody other criminal.

 

[Deanimator]

I say we write it into law that whenever something like this happens and a lawsuit is the result that the funds are drawn from those involved (officers, school board, etc) personally for either allowing it to happen or participating in it. This way the answer can not be to simply raise taxes.

I have a better idea, which I've proposed elsewhere.

Any time that police, etc. are convicted of actionable conduct, plaintiff(s) awards come FIRST out of the operating budget of that agency. So if the BATFE went to the wrong address, stomped your cat and beat your wife until she miscarried, damages would come FIRST from their current operating budget. If the award was LARGER, then they would be required to lay off personnel and auction assets. Only THEN, could general funds be used to pay off the balance of the judgement. If they had to CLOSE BATFE offices for lack of operating funds, so much the better. The same should apply to state and local law enforcement agencies.

I GUARANTEE you that would bring ALL of this stuff to a screeching halt, especially when a cop's co-workers knew that his misconduct caused THEM to lose their jobs because their salaries went to pay a judgement against the department.

People only modify their behaviors when there are consequences attached thereto. That goes DOUBLE for government agencies.

 

[Matt King]

The Rev. Jesse Jackson led a protest march amid accusations blacks were unfairly targeted.

Doesn't he have something better to do?

 

[Molon Labe]

Why aren't those officers in jail, their lives ruined?

For the same reason nothing happens to cops who steal firearms.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Maybe the parents can sue the manufacturers of the guns, uniforms, shoes, cars, and other equipment used by the police in their illegal acts?

Also could be worthwhile to sue their parents for giving birth to those people and not raising them properly, their churches for not instilling within them a proper respect for the law and the rights of others, and the schools they attended for not meeting their educational responsibilities.

 

[Molon Labe]

I have a better idea...

Me too.

When a criminal infringes upon your inalienable rights, you have a moral duty to defend yourself.

A cop infringing on your inalienable rights is a criminal. Hence when a cop infringes upon your inalienable rights, you have a moral duty to defend yourself.

 

[Erebus]

I'm with Lupinus and Kel on this one for sure.

If the individual officer can't be held responsible for his actions how do you expect to get such actions to stop? If you can sue the department but they are powerless to reprimand the officer what's his motivation to stop what he's doing?

We had a badge heavy a few years ago who had it out for bikers. He towed a bunch of bikes that he found parked outside a row of bars in Lunenburg. His justification was that he found non-DOT helmets on them. DOT helmets are required in MA.

1st mistake - They were in saddle bags and he went in them illegally.
2nd mistake - You must be in motion for the violation to occur.
3rd mistake - A non-DOT helmet violation is a fine not an impound offense.
4th mistake - Tow companies were not careful and damaged the bikes. One was dropped on it's side.

Lawsuit followed against the department and was won by the bike club and they were compensated for their trouble and damages.

However the officer is still on the job to this day. His new "thing" is loud exhaust pipes on cars. I have seen him with 6 cars pulled over at the same time for loud exhaust. One of the six was me. He wanted to write me up for my exhaust being too loud on my Corvette. It was bone stock, factory original and only 6 weeks old. He continued to write the ticket until I told him that a Corvette has the job number of the car laser engraved on all the pipes and I would have the dealer inspect the system, document it and I would sue him personally for harrassment. He let me go without a ticket.

 

[kel]

Deanimator, the seems similar to gun control and might not very productive. It would punish the wrong people, and could have unintended consequences. I think it would be impossible to fairly and lawfully pursue such a policy without crippling whole departments both financially and functionally.

I think we have all the laws we need on the books (someone close em!). If we (or they) enforced them, if we elected district attourneys and attourney generals that are hard on criminals both in and out of uniform, then problem would resolve itself in short order. There would be a small number of dirty cops in jail and the majority would continue business as usual with a focus on actual crimes and not fabricated ones.

As an electorate we don't pay anywhere near enough attention to district attourneys, and attourney generals. These people are key in reigning in law enforcement by prosecuting LEOs, and by refusing to prosecute people an individual officer has railroaded on bogus charges. It doesn't matter whether someone is exonerated in court, the mere fact that they are forced to go to trial and expend large sums in their defense means they have already lost. I see two solutions, public defenders should receive the same amount of funding as prosecutors (by federal law or constitutional amendment) so the burden of defense is on the state in criminal matters, or DAs have to get on the ball and start obeying the law (becaue we the voters force them too). DAs should be working as hard to defend us as Judges currently do.

 

[Otherguy Overby]

Professional police force

What we need is a real professional police force, not a government run force.

IOW, privatize police, put private companies under contract. They won't be going out on stupid no knock raids because they'd then be liable for stomping the kittens. IOW, apply true professional standards against them. Of course we'd then have to forego constitutionally questionable enforcement like drug law, weapons law and other stuff. They'd then go out only on true Felony violations.

Call the cops? Expect a bill. Well seriously, you are on you own anyway. Call the cops on your neighbor? Expect a bill, pay it. You can settle up with neighbor in small claims court. Call the cops on some rowdy kids, the cops can bill their parents...

Shoot a burglar? Put 'em out on trash day.

Wot about traffic and stuff, Otherguy? Sheesh, how about private traffic referees? They could investigate accidents an maybe make arrests for something like DWS (Driving While Stupid) and not go out just looking for revenue.

Sound far fetched? Hey the present government run police system isn't working and hasn't for years. Got a better idea?

 

[Deanimator]

Me too.

When a criminal infringes upon your inalienable rights, you have a moral duty to defend yourself.

A cop infringing on your inalienable rights is a criminal. Hence when a cop infringes upon your inalienable rights, you have a moral duty to defend yourself.

Unfortunately, not probably within the power of typical students...