Posted on 07/29/2005 1:43:45 PM PDT by No Truce With Kings
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.
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.
Like Houston's K-Mart raid.
Yeah, that was an amusing thread, especially the "police can do no wrong" types.
A blast from the past. Any chance of a Texas ping?
I don't have a Texas pinglist, but Houmatt, who no longer lives in Texas, but was a key contributor to those threads might be interested.
You are as bad as I am.
MeekOne GOP is the Texas ping king.
I'd be dangerously angered were I arrested.
I wonder what article of the constitution she's using to form the basis of this decision.
"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.
Well, unfortunately, it drew a lot of 'police can do no right' types as well. I initially sided with the police, but when more facts came in, it was obvious what happened and I changed my mind. I think I even apologised, even though I never posted any personal attacks. Anyway, knees jerk on both sides,ya' know?
Bradford was one of the slimiest characters in a thouroughly corrupt administration. As a Houston taxpayer I realize that this could cost the city but I hope the plaintiffs stick it to everyone involved in this criminal enterprise. I could easily believe that the police chief and the mayor didn't understand what was going on but I belive they knew what was going to happen during this "raid."
The problem is people that are totally dogmatic on either side; either the police are totally justified in whatever they do, or they're always jack-booted thugs.
I have a friend who is a District of Columbia cop; great guy.
I can't imagine doing police work, especially when you're a State Trooper coming up on some family of 5 that has had their minivan head-oned by a Semi and they're splattered all over the place; couldn't pay me enough for that.
There are hundreds of thousands of police in the country and I'm sure the majority are upstanding guys. But when you get a critical mass of idiots in supervisory positions it's clear that some police really get out of hand on an all-too-frequent basis.
Have a link to the previous thread?
There used to be an archive of all the threads, I'll try to dig it up...
He was a convenient idiot for the powers that put him into office, but that's it.
The police can do no wrong unless they are doing wrong.
This particular event was a major SNAFU on the part of HPD. Who apparently went out to catch kids with rice racers but overlooked the fact that a bunch of these people were not kids and didn't have little Honda's with bad exhausts and absurd looking body kits on their little front wheel drive rockets. HPD did as bad a job as profiling as we do in airports. Which means they basically did the same thing as we do in airports.
Speaking of airports. I've figured out a way to solve the profiling problem in airports. I call it "the other white meat" solution. We don't inspect carry on luggage, nobody shows ID and nobody has to take their shoes off, etc. We just have folks form a line and as they pass a raw hunk of pork ribs they have to rub their hands on it. All we need is some pig ribs and a lot of moist towelettes. We could even have an express line of cooked ribs where the person grabs a rib and chews away. Anyone that can't get past the pig gets searched.
This idea can be expanded all sorts of ways. Someone could start "Oink Air". All the seats are pig skin.
It's right there, in Amendment 4.
Geez, we really need a test before people can start posting here.
L
The "facial"* one.
*"...with no regard for the existence of open businesses and their customers, is facially unconstitutional," Atlas wrote..."
Remember the first thread about this. Could not believe how many posters were supporting what these police did.
Thanks for the update.
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.