It's been a while

Matt St. John said:

The tax payers were not held accountable. Each DPS officer has insurance through the department for civil suits and that is what is used to settle and pay for representation. So the departments premiums went up as did the individual officers. How much? I have no idea. I do know that they went up.

Click to expand...

Where do the funds to pay the premiums originate. No matter how removed the taxpayer is from the disbursement government employees are paid via tax dollars. Their budgets also rely upon the tax payer. Now, NM may have some form of non-tax payer funding scheme that would make them the exception to the rule.

I did state that it was a victory for Mr. St. John. The obvious can not be ignored. But, it is the rare occasion where a wronged citizen can easily "stick it to the man." A very powerful message could have been sent. Mr. St. John clearly indicated that he had no desire to do such a thing and thus a opportunity was lost. His case is one more case that we can cite.

No sour grapes, just a simple observation.

Meh...

Matt St. John said:

LEO's are protected from criminal prosecution unless their intent can be proved to be other than the performance of their duties.

Click to expand...

That is true. But the article simply states that the claims were denied.

St. John, 27, also had filed a claim for false arrest and battery, but the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico in Las Cruces denied it.

Click to expand...

Is that the same as the officers were proven to have acted lawfully? That their acts were reviewed given the proven facts available to them at that time and in the context of the current law? The article does not delve into that aspect of your experience.

The request for summary judgement on those counts were denied, that doesn't mean that they were not guilty of it. We would have had to take it all the way to court which would have been iceing on the cake but not nessesary because the summary judgement was already affirmed for the (in my mind) important aspects of the case being the 4th amendment violations.

You again have to realize that this was over 4 years ago, you can learn a whole lot in 4 years and I have. If I was presented with the same opportunity again would I have reacted differently? Yep, but that's the issue with hindsite it's 20/20. I would have handled the entire situation differently including the actual event.

Again, you can't second guess the past, you just end up with a headache, you can just learn and move on. For an inexperienced (at that point nieve and ignorant) american it came out pretty good in the end.

So to answer your question, the individual officers pay for their own insurance. Also, the failure of the summary judgement to find them guilting of battery did not mean that they were found to be lawful in that regard. It's just a summary judgement.

Matt,

Is there an on-line source for all the judgements/opinions in your case?

I ask because I swear I read a court opinion in your case where the court cited Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford--"No right is held more sacred...free from all restraint and interference unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law." Yet, when I read the final decision, I couldn't find it.

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In FDCO 20090909841.xml

That's the official decision from the court.

BTW, (not to get off topic) how're you doing Citizen? It's been a while since I talked to you.

Matt St. John said:

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In FDCO 20090909841.xml

That's the official decision from the court.

BTW, (not to get off topic) how're you doing Citizen? It's been a while since I talked to you.

Click to expand...

Doing well, thank you. I have to say, my estimation of you just went through the roof today. I did not realize Jizzle and Matt St. John were the same guy. Nor, did I know you founded a rights group with the money.

Or, I guess I should say the anti-rights defendants funded a rights group.

Yep I used to be Jizzle. I decided to change it up and use my actual name in all future online correspondence a while ago. You learn a lot in 4 years.

Matt St. John said:

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In FDCO 20090909841.xml

That's the official decision from the court.

BTW, (not to get off topic) how're you doing Citizen? It's been a while since I talked to you.

Click to expand...

Yes, I read the decision some time ago.

But, I was caught off-guard by the title because I was sure the case was St. John vs Alamagordo or similar.

Something has changed. I swear, I swear, I swear I saw a citation to Union Pacific Rail vs Botsford. It stood out in my mind because I was keenly interested in the government's rights-destroying standard for immunity that a cop knew or should reasonably know about such and such right.

You see, in Botsford, the right is no restraint or interference unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Basically, if the Botsford right is applied, a cop doesn't need to know whether a right exists. He only needs to know whether he has clear and unquestionable authority to take whatever action he's contemplating. In your situation, a cop wouldn't have to know the fine points of Terry Stop doctrine--he would only have to know whether he had positive legal authority to act. If he's unsure, he's restrained. He can't make it up and let the courts figure it out, either. Its completely different from the current federal standard; Botsford is much more protective of rights.

So, it really stood out in my mind to see a court apply Botsford.

Was there an earlier decision in your case that cited Botsford?

That might have been one of the cases either my attorney or their attorney cited to defend or refute the others position in the earlier documents. But that decision is the only one that I have.

Matt St. John said:

That might have been one of the cases either my attorney or their attorney cited to defend or refute the others position in the earlier documents. But that decision is the only one that I have.

Click to expand...

Oh, I see.

I notice the opinion is from the fedgov district court, so I'm assuming that was the original court and not an appellate court.

Yep, there was no appeal.