Court to Police: No Immunity Just Because You're Cops

Reason ^ | August 27, 2014 | Jackson Kuhl

[bamahead]

On a Sunday afternoon in 2008, a tactical police team raided the Easton, Connecticut house of Ronald Terebesi searching for a small amount of personal drugs. While by day's end the police discovered drug paraphernalia and 0.02 ounces of a substance believed to be crack cocaine, an officer also killed Terebesi's unarmed guest, Gonzalo Guizan (pictured), by discharging his Glock sidearm six times until the weapon finally jammed.

Guizan's estate and Terebesi filed civil suits against the officers in the raid, although the estate later settled out of court for $3.5 million. The tactical team—called SWERT for Southwest Regional Emergency Response Team—was composed of police officers from six different towns. The defendants, all of whom either planned or participated in the raid, requested summary judgment based on qualified immunity, which the district court for the most part denied (the court agreed police had lawfully acquired the search warrant and dismissed failure-to-train claims against the town chiefs). The defendants appealed.

On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second District affirmed most of the lower court's denial of summary judgment and remanded the case.

--SNIP--

The Appeals Court affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment on every point save one ... Solomon was within his rights to activate the SWERT team in the first place (the town of Easton, probably upon reviewing their insurance premiums after the settlement with Guizan's estate, appears to have disagreed: Solomon's contract was not renewed and he was shown the door). But on every other count the court tilted in Terebesi's favor, noting that the use of stun grenades, being pinned by the officers' shields, the poor planning and approval of the raid, and even the failure of officers to intervene to stop it are constitutional grounds for a trial.

[driftdiver]

So we lost the election and should just sit down and shut up. got it.

[Ken H]

I don’t know where whole societal groups who gladly accepted a completely unvetted Presidential nominee...

Which groups are you referring to?

...are in a position to demand a more and greater vetting process for local law enforcement.

Amendment I, perhaps?

[Will88]

On a Sunday afternoon in 2008, a tactical police team raided the Easton, Connecticut house of Ronald Terebesi searching for a small amount of personal drugs

There should not be many justifications for this short of raid on private residences, and "small amounts of personal drugs" should not be one of them.

[EricT.]

After reading the article, I see that the subject of the raid was probably a dirt bag, but lived far enough out in the country to not be a danger to anyone who didn't trespass on his property or come into close contact with him. The balaclava and grenade raid was completely out of line for a minuscule amount of drugs. It's not like he was holding hostages or threatening a terrorist attack. The raid should have never happened. They could have just arrested him when he went to pick up his mail if they had a legitimate reason to.

I hate to make a joke about something that caused the death of someone, but this made me snicker a little:

"It has been suggested that what Sweeney actually felt was the explosion of the third flashbang—and that in any event, throwing a grenade in front of your own officers is perhaps contrary to their interests."

What the heck? Did these cops learn to use flashbangs by playing CounterStrike online with 12 year-olds?

Darn 'nade spammers.

[Albion Wilde]

There should not be many justifications for this short of raid on private residences, and "small amounts of personal drugs" should not be one of them.

Bingo! Overkill may bring on the same sort of legalistic RoE crap that is preventing our soldiers from winning wars for fear of being imprisoned for killing an enemy disguised as a civilian. If cops can't police themselves, they will end up emasculating themselves and bringing about total anarchy, soon accompanied by tyranny.

[DCBryan1]

I think the solution to this is for the cops to have to carry malfeasance (malpractice) insurance

You know....after reading and re-reading your post. I nominate it for the smartest, most well reasoned, and probably one of the best solutions out there.

I still think every CLEO needs a dash cam and body cam (and gun cams are getting smaller than the ITI flashlights) issued.

If I were a cop, I'd spend my own money on a body cam.

[grumpygresh]

SWAT raids are way, way up over the last 20 years, and there is no real justification for this increase. SWAT raid overutilization is jeopardizing the lives of police and suspects. SWAT raids were even used in the political witchunt against Scott Walker supporters in a bogus investigation by a hyper partisan Gestapo DA John Chisholm in Milwaukee Co.
SWAT raids need to be rare and we need strict oversight and personal accountability(civil & criminal penalties) if they go bad and the indications for the raid are not absolutely warranted.

[bike800]

In reference to,your little picture about police, i believe that the shootout in Hollywood, CA had something tk do with it...

[qwerty1234]

>>You know....after reading and re-reading your post. I nominate it for the smartest, most well reasoned, and probably one of the best solutions out there.

Not by a long shot. Require cops to have personal liability insurance and the police unions will immediately renegotiate their contracts to cover 110% of the cost - it won’t ‘cost’ the cops anything - just like raising taxes on corporations doesn’t work - the cost simply gets passed along to the folks that actually pay the bill - us.

Cameras on every cop, and no immunity - those ideas I can get behind.

[CodeToad]

“by discharging his Glock sidearm six times until the weapon finally jammed. “

Sooooo...we must know this is a bogus story because Glocks don’t jam?

[arthurus]

From the video it seems pretty obvious that the cops just blew their way into the house and killed the first person they saw. They should have gone through the house and killed everyone there. Then there would be no one to tell a tale that contradicts whatever the cops come up with.

They obviously forgot to use the magic exculpatory formula: "I felt threatened." Had the shooter said that all legal proceedings against the officers would have been simply thrown out of court and the shooter would have got himself an extra paid vacation and maybe an award for heroism.

[Smokin' Joe]

Nothing is going to change until the officers involved in this nonsense are held personally liable for their actions.

What gets me is that if you are boots on the ground in Afghanistan and shoot some haji who ditches his AK, you can go up on charges, but the cops who blow the meat off a toddler's face and chest walk?

One of the problems with militarized police is that they are not held to even the ROE our military is. (Not that the latter is necessarily good for the military--but somehow police need to step away from the 'warfighter' mentality and back to the 'civillian police' mindset).

[Smokin' Joe]

That little shootout could have been finished by one shooter with a scoped, hunting quality rifle in less than ten rounds.

MRAPS?

[MileHi]

The tactical team—called SWERT for Southwest Regional Emergency Response Team—

TWERK

Tactical
Weapons
Emergency
Response
Kops

[Vendome]

Real Dix

[meadsjn]

There had been a number of incidents at Terebesi's house prior to the raid:
...
Neighbors complained of noise and traffic.
...

While I really don't approve of any sort of SWAT raids on occupied residences, I just can't work up any sympathy for the sub-human druggie noise-makers.

If they could just napalm the noisy drug house from 30k feet, rather than just zapping one of the pests, and costing the taxpayers several million dollars, I'd be OK with that.

[bike800]

I was addressing the body gear and rifles. As far as mraps. I can forsee situations where they would be useful, if not necessary. Whether that situation ever unfolds...lets hope not.

[JoeFromSidney]

One of the problems with these multi-jurisdictional task forces is that there is no "chain of command." Each member reports to a different political jurisdiction. Ultimately, no political entity is responsible for whatever the task force does. They can all point at someone else as being responsible for whatever went wrong.

[Still Thinking]

Well OK, so I could accept your argument in principle but still contend that it applies only to the sort of people that would vote for Osama, but that normal, good people can still complain and sue. We shouldn’t get punished for being outnumbered by idiots. That sound OK?

[editor-surveyor]

Tell that dude on the lower right to get down on his belly, and get more appropriate camo.