Posted on 11/18/2015 5:50:56 AM PST by don-o
Four more bikers have filed civil rights lawsuits after their arrests following the Twin Peaks Biker Shootout in May of 2015.
Robert Bucy, George Bergman, Noe Adame and Jorge Salinas have filed suit alongside Matthew Clendennen, claiming their constitutional rights were violated.
117 bikers were arrested and held on $1 million bond in the days after the shooting.
The lawsuit names Waco Police Chief Brent Stroman, Waco Police Detective Manuel Chavez, McLennan County District Attorney Abel Reyna and a currently unnamed trooper with the Department of Public Safety as defendants.
All five bikers are asking for a jury trial, damages and attorney fees.
The suit claims that the arrests of the bikers en mass were unlawful, mainly because of a "complete absence of individual, particularized facts to establish probable cause." That claim centers around "fill-in the blank" warrants that attorneys for bikers say were used against their clients.
The main contention of the case is one of constitutional rights, and has potentially crippling consequences for tax payers if the bikers are able to win in court.
Local officials and law enforcement have declined to comment in the past, due to pending litigation and a gag order on Matthew Clendennen's case.
Note error - 177 were arrested - not 117
What is the story of the two individuals recently arrested? Were they on the scene and managed to slip away?
Links to suits: Clendennen, Bergman, Bucy, Salinas, and Adame.
All filed by Broden in Federal District Court in Western District of Texas, Austin; all v. Stroman, Chavez, Reyna and John Does. It argues that Reyna is not entitled to absolute immunity, as the suit is for actions taken during investigation, prior to a determination of probable cause. I'm not sure that will fly because DA's routinely are involved prior to arrest, and routinely advise police whether or not probable cause exists. In other words, investigation and PC analysis is part of the prosecutorial function.
Taxpayers should not be liable in any way for these acts. A By definition a “Civil Rights” violation is a PERSONAL ACT against an Individual, and should be treated as so. The Individual that committed the PERSONAL CRIME should be Liable for EVERYTHING!!
Speculation from one of the three who turned himself in that all nine were among the injured, and all nine know they have been indicted.
So the count is now 179?
I don't know which two you are referring to. I am only aware of the 9 not arrested on 5/17 who were indicted by the Grand Jury.
177 + 9 = 186 potential defendants.
Of course, that does not include any LE who may have acted in a criminal manner.
186. The original 177 (actually that was 182, but five were unarrested and never subjected to bond), plus the nine sealed indictments.
“All filed by Broden in Federal District Court in Western District of Texas, Austin;”
For heaven’s sake, get some of those cases in other jurisdictions; otherwise, a judge will combine them into one
case, and then the cases can be “controlled” to suit the government.
Maybe it because the City and the County have deeper pockets. If it bankrupts the City and County it might send a bigger message to others.
I had to go back and watch the video.
Paul Miller and Roy Nelson. They were mentioned in the video.
I’d like to know more about the ones who weren’t arrested.
Thanks. Slow on the uptake this morning.
There is no justification for that. All the parties and the actions complained of are in the same state, and if one did file in a different federal court in the same state, defendants would move to have the case transferred to one court. Sometimes that happens even when the cases are all over the US - it happened in the set of 20+ complaints about federal snooping/wiretapping without a warrant.
-- ... otherwise, a judge will combine them into one case --
There are good arguments why he can't do that. In particular, each person has his own personal history and relationship with a biker club (or gang, if you are sympathetic to the control-freak point of view in harmony with the state), making the finding of probable cause unique to each individual.
In addition, damages for each will vary, due to their situations before and after being arrested.
From link in 14, Tommy Whitherspoon reports. If it plays out this way, the six month elapsed time changes their status. Right?
It renders the accusations stale. Status is unchanged until a court changes the status. Those who were accused but not indicted can move the court to lift the court's conditions, with the reason being that the accusations are stale.
Cookie cutter motions ;-)
The dismissal of Clendennen's lawsuit is routinely ignored by the media...I'd be surprised if his attorney has refiled it.
Just remember that Nifong engaged in all the activity claimed about Reyna—
he personally investigated the case (and so lost his immunity as a DA); police in that case lied to get warrants;
Nifong paraded false evidence and statements before the media;
police lied to the grand jury; etc.
And the Duke lacrosse case was gutted by a single judge, who, after combining three different suits, stalled for three years, forbade the taking of depositions or evidence during that time, and then gutted the suits because, according to him,
the civil rights provisions which permit lawsuits of
state officials for violating your civil rights, apply only to black citizens and no one else (ie, not whites, latinos, native americans, pacific islands, etc.)
That’s what one judge with an agenda (defending the state) can do.
And laws, precedents, congressional intent, etc., can be rendered meaningless (unless you want to spend a decade working your case up to the SCOTUS level—assuming then that they would even be willing to hear it).
You’re up against the power of the state, so you have to be
ready for a battle.
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.