Raiders of Jewish Mother can’t be sued, court rules

The Virginian-Pilot ^ | 30 sept 2004 | MARC DAVIS

[csvset]

Raiders of Jewish Mother can’t be sued, court rules
By MARC DAVIS, The Virginian-Pilot
© September 30, 2004
Last updated: 11:18 PM

On April 2, 1994, more than two dozen agents raided the Jewish Mother restaurants in Norfolk and Virginia Beach, as well as the homes of co-owner John Colaprete and then-manager Scotty Miller, pictured. VP file photo.

Background: Restaurants displaced for project

VIRGINIA BEACH — An appeals court ruled Wednesday that state and federal agents cannot be held responsible for the massive, unsuccessful 1994 raids on the Jewish Mother restaurants.

That reverses a 2000 ruling by a Norfolk federal judge that two government agents – one from the Internal Revenue Service and one from the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Department – should stand trial civilly for the botched raids. The appeal had been pending for four years, an unusually long time, even by federal court standards.

A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond ruled that IRS Agent Carol Willman and ABC Agent Bob Dunford are immune from being sued over the raids.

In a 16-page opinion, the court ruled that Willman had reasonable grounds to obtain a search warrant against the Jewish Mother.

As for Dunford, the appeals court ruled that he was “the driving force” behind much of the Jewish Mother’s investigation, but he did not induce Willman to seek a search warrant without “probable cause.”

Finally, the appeals court ruled that Willman and Dunford cannot be sued over allegations that they stole a watch seized from the owner’s home.

The court concluded that if Willman or Dunford did steal the watch, it would be “a tort, a crime, and even a sin,” but not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which bans “unreasonable searches and seizures.” If the theft did occur, the court said, the Jewish Mother’s owner could sue for compensation.

The controversy stems from raids in which government agents expected to find massive quantities of drugs and evidence of tax fraud.

On April 2, 1994, more than two dozen agents simultaneously raided the Jewish Mother restaurants in Norfolk and Virginia Beach, as well as the homes of Jewish Mother co-owner John Colaprete and then-manager Scotty Miller.

The agents carted away a truckload of documents and equipment from the homes and businesses. Five months later, the agents abruptly returned everything and announced that the investigation was over. No one was charged and the agencies never gave an explanation or apology.

The Norfolk restaurant closed shortly after the raids. The Beach restaurant closed recently for unrelated reasons, and owners are looking for a new location.

The raids were based largely on the word of a disgruntled former bookkeeper, Deborah Shofner, who had been fired from the Jewish Mother two weeks earlier for embezzling money. None of her accusations proved to be true.

The restaurant, its owners and manger sued the IRS and ABC agents for $20 million, claiming violations of their constitutional rights.

In 2000, U.S. District Judge Robert G. Doumar spent several days grilling the agents in great detail in open court, then issued a blistering 102-page ruling against them.

Doumar ruled that Willman and Dunford should stand trial civilly. He ruled they were not immune from suit because a jury could find they had obtained the search warrants improperly.

Doumar ripped the agents for basing their raids on the word of a convicted liar. He questioned whether ABC agents used the raids to get revenge on the Jewish Mother for past confrontations.

Doumar concluded that the search warrant affidavit was “rife with inconsistencies and misrepresentations.’’ He ruled that the IRS had clearly underplayed Shofner’s criminal history and her firing for embezzlement.

“A jury should pass on whether this was done by design or through inadvertence,’’ Doumar wrote.

On Wednesday, the court ruled that Shofner, the ex-bookkeeper, enhanced her credibility by implicating herself in some of the illegal activities that she claimed had happened. The appeals court also ruled that it was not unreasonable for the IRS to rely on documents provided by Shofner to obtain the search warrants.

“We therefore hold that an investigator in Willmans’ position could reasonably have determined that Shofner, the documents she provided, and analysis of those documents … were sufficiently credible to establish probable cause” for the search warrants, the court wrote.

It is not known whether the Jewish Mother will appeal this ruling. The restaurant’s attorney could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

If there is no appeal, this would mark the end of the 10-year legal battle.

Reach Marc Davis at 222-5131 or marc.davis@pilotonline.com.

[csvset]

The IRS raided these guys on the word of a convicted thief who had been fired for embezzling from the company. The IRS goon squad raided their house while his daughter had some friends over for a sleep over. Of course the goon squads acted as though they were taking down Al Capone. The fired employee was stealing money to support her cocaine habit. I wish the owners of the Jewish Mother well.

[Coop]

Gee, you haven't made up your mind on this one, have you? :-)

I remember when this happened. My sister used to work at the Jewish Mother years ago. Great place for deli sandwiches and beers from around the world.

[joesnuffy]

The court concluded that if Willman or Dunford did steal the watch, it would be “a tort, a crime, and even a sin,” but not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which bans “unreasonable searches and seizures.” If the theft did occur, the court said, the Jewish Mother’s owner could sue for compensation.

That's nice...they can break in on the word of a drug addict embezzler and steal from those wrongly searched and not only costs them nothing....they dont pay damages and if they steal while under the cloak of their warrant and cover of their badges.... the high court could care less...and says this does not constitute an illegal 'seizure'...

These guys werent just breaking into someones home...like a home invasion robbery...they used a 'warrant' and the powers of their office...and yet any theft of property is to be a matter for the criminal courts as for an ordinary burlary?

So if the homeowner tries to stop the feds from 'stealing' in his home would that be a federal crime for interfering with an investigation or is he allowed to stop a thief since the court considers this a private crime matter?...

Constitution what constitution...they pee on that document every time they get a chance

They really seem to hate that document almost as much as they hate 'a free' we the people...

imo

[ikka]

I have a lot of thoughts about this. None printable.

[tarawa]

I remember eating at the Jewish Mother many a time while I was stationed in Virginia Beach. Great food and great live music there. Wish I had someplace like that to go where I live now.

[Liberty Valance]

"...on the word of a convicted thief who had been fired for embezzling from the company."

This is not uncommon as I have seen this happen twice in companies where I've worked. Another good reason for thorough background checks on all employees BEFORE they get anywhere near the till.

[sergeantdave]

Outrageous ruling. Who's in the 4th circuit, all Clinton jerks?

[pgkdan]

I'd almost forgotten about this...now you've gone and got my blood pressure up again. This entire episode was an egregious abuse of power. They damn near ruined this man's reputation, they invaded his home and held his 12 year old daughter and her friend at gunpoint while they ransacked the place, all under the cover of a warrant and acting as agents of the government. Every agent involved in this fiasco should be fired, sued and should face criminal charges. Bast*rds!

[pgkdan]

Of course the goon squads acted as though they were taking down Al Capone.

No...they acted as if they worked FOR Al Capone.

[Coop]

I don't pretend to recall all the details a decade later. But if they had a warrant, then in my view the agents are not accountable. Go after the judge.