Posted on 05/01/2004 1:26:30 PM PDT by blitzgig
Gilbert & Sullivan provide abundant authority for the truism that a policeman's lot is not a happy one. That goes for policewomen, too. Ask Detective Rochelle Brosseau of Puyallup, Wash.
The city of Puyallup (pop. 32,000) lies just east of Tacoma. On the afternoon of Feb. 21, 1999, it was the scene of a fight, a shooting, a brief auto chase, and an arrest for attempting to elude the police. Now the incident is in the U.S. Supreme Court on a petition for review. The question is whether Officer Brosseau acted unreasonably when she shot and wounded Kenneth J. Haugen. You decide.
The facts are not greatly in dispute. Haugen was in a drug-selling business with Glen Tamburello. Their relationship soured. When it appeared that Haugen had stolen some tools belonging to his partner, Tamburello went looking for him. According to the city's petition, "Haugen had a lengthy criminal history and was actively avoiding contact with police because he knew they had felony warrants."
A fight ensued. A neighbor called the cops. By chance, Officer Brosseau was at a traffic stop nearby. She responded quickly and reached the scene just as the ruckus was ending. Haugen took advantage of the distraction caused by her arrival. He fled into a brushy area. Brosseau called for backup. Other officers arrived. A K-9 dog went to work. Neighbors, including a 3-year-old child, watched the excitement.
Suddenly Haugen appeared. He leaped into his old Jeep Cherokee. Brosseau shouted for him to stop. She reached into the Jeep, trying vainly to grab the keys. When he managed to start the engine, she broke the driver's side window with her pistol. He roared off through the crowd. She shot once. A mile down the road he pulled over. He had suffered a collapsed lung from the bullet. Police took him to a hospital. He recovered and eventually pleaded guilty to a charge of eluding police.
As soon as he could retain counsel, Haugen sued Brosseau and the city for $2 million for violation of his civil rights. The city and the officer won in District Court on a motion for summary judgment, but a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the case for trial of his charges only against the officer.
The Fightin' Ninth Circuit is renowned in judicial circles for its contentious and divided opinions. In the Supreme Court, the Ninth regularly wins acclaim, of a dubious sort, as the circuit most often reversed. In the case of Officer Brosseau the fractious judges carried contention to a new level.
Judge Betty B. Fletcher wrote for the three-judge panel: "We conclude that Brosseau has not pointed to objectively reasonable factors to support her belief that Haugen's escape from the driveway posed a significant risk of death or serious injury...." Clearly, "Brosseau and her fellow officers ... could either have discontinued a chase if it became too dangerous, or could have forgone a chase entirely."
Six judges urged the full circuit court to rehear the case. Judge Richard C. Tallman spoke for them. Fletcher's opinion "does a grave injustice to Officer Brosseau." The panel's opinion "displays no sensitivity whatever to the difficulties police officers face when making life and death decisions in tense situations." The officer's concern for the safety of fellow officers and bystanders "was completely reasonable."
Judge Ronald M. Gould separately dissented: "The majority's sweeping position, which promises an easy escape for any felon willing to threaten innocent lives by driving recklessly, is indefensible as a matter of law and policy. ... The majority opinion creates a new obstacle to effective law enforcement in the western United States." By his own plea of guilty to the "eluding" charge, Haugen had admitted "a wanton or willful disregard for the lives of others."
Gould let his outrage bubble over: "The majority believes that police officers should permit felons to speed away unpursued rather than attempt to stop them. ... The majority neglects the fact that if police are forbidden to pursue, then many more suspects will flee. ... If the majority had its way in setting law enforcement policy, no police officer ever would pursue a felon at high speed, the police would surrender rather than the felon, who would be given a free pass to an easy escape. ... Officer Brosseau should be commended, not condemned, for acting with courage and decisiveness to protect the public from a dangerous felon in a deranged mental state." (is this still Gould?)
Long ago, as a young reporter, I covered the police beat and learned something of the terrifying tension under which officers must make split-second decisions. To try Brosseau is absurd.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.