UVA student sues the ABC - does she have a case?

Repeater · Mar 27, 2014

user said:
Absolutely not as to the state - ABC is a state agency, the claim is not negligence (as to which the Tort Claims Act would apply), but intentional torts. So ABC is covered by sovereign immunity.

As to the specific agents, they're going to get the benefit of "qualified immunity" if they were on duty and can make any kind of argument at all that they were motivated by "probable cause". No question their actions were way over the top, and they should probably be screened for mental health disorders - I'd say a TDO would be appropriate - but they're probably not civilly liable.

I would like to think the case could advance at least as far as discovery.

"Qualified Immunity" here in the Fourth Circuit has been quite organic, constantly evolving (see e.g., Bellotte v. Edwards). This could get interesting.

va_tazdad · Mar 27, 2014

BillB said:
That's right it's because of the revenue that VA is still in the liquor business. I know it's somewhat of a pipe dream, but maybe one day we'll get some politicians that will reduce the size of government and save the same amount or more that it would lose by privatizing the ABC stores. Additionally, since VA's ABC Department is a revenue generator, I believe it has far more agents than it needs and if the revenue were no longer there most of the ABC's revenue agents would not be there either.

Actually, the agency has 30 agents less than they are authorized and need. Some rocket scientist tried to roll the Enforcement division into the State Police until they realized that would not save any money and the agents would be turned into nothing more than radar ticket machines.

arentol · Mar 27, 2014

user said:
Absolutely not as to the state - ABC is a state agency, the claim is not negligence (as to which the Tort Claims Act would apply), but intentional torts. So ABC is covered by sovereign immunity.

As to the specific agents, they're going to get the benefit of "qualified immunity" if they were on duty and can make any kind of argument at all that they were motivated by "probable cause". No question their actions were way over the top, and they should probably be screened for mental health disorders - I'd say a TDO would be appropriate - but they're probably not civilly liable.

What gets me is that implicit in the above scenario, if that is how this case goes, is that pulling a gun on an unarmed suspect that you have no reason to believe is a danger to anyone is okay. That officers should be trained to do so. Pointing a firearm at someone who is not an apparent threat should be criminal, no matter who does it. It is sad we have gotten to this state of acceptance of deadly threat over minor incidents being not just okay, but practically the suggested method.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

BillB · Mar 27, 2014

va_tazdad said:
Actually, the agency has 30 agents less than they are authorized and need.

Authorized I'll buy, need I won't. :lol:

va_tazdad · Mar 27, 2014

BillB said:
Authorized I'll buy, need I won't. :lol:

And that is less than they used to have. Do you actually understand what the Enforcement agents do? I doubt it.

But it is your right to disagree. This is still America, at least until NObama and his minions destroy it.

BillB · Mar 27, 2014

va_tazdad said:
And that is less than they used to have. Do you actually understand what the Enforcement agents do? I doubt it.

But it is your right to disagree. This is still America, at least until NObama and his minions destroy it.

Well educate me. What does an ABC agent do that a VSP officer can not? Why does the ABC need it's own law enforcement officers?

Grapeshot · Mar 27, 2014

BillB said:
I guess you and I will just have to disagree here. VSP could be doing everything the ABC agents do, especially if the ABC Department were not in the liquor business.

VSP could do everything that the Capital Police do; in fact VSP could do everything that all of the police departments throughout the state do.

VSP could do what the Commonwealth Attorneys do. Transfer all of the CA to VSP and fund accordingly.

VSP could do what DMV does. VSP could do what the Virginia Dept of Taxation does, especially delinquent tax collection.

Have one big super state agency - efficiency through centralization.

The fact is separate state agencies are often separate so that they can maintain the focus on their primary mission and not be redirected at the whim of internal bureaucracy.

BillB · Mar 27, 2014

Grapeshot said:
VSP could do everything that the Capital Police do; in fact VSP could do everything that all of the police departments throughout the state do.

VSP could do what the Commonwealth Attorneys do. Transfer all of the CA to VSP and fund accordingly.

VSP could do what DMV does. VSP could do what the Virginia Dept of Taxation does, especially delinquent tax collection.

Have one big super state agency - efficiency through centralization.

The fact is separate state agencies are often separate so that they can maintain the focus on their primary mission and not be redirected at the whim of internal bureaucracy.

Grape we have been talking about VSP officers and ABC agents. I don't think many VSP officers could do what the commonwealth attorneys do. § 19.2-81 spells out what VA departments are authorized agents/officers with arrest powers. The DMV, I don't know how many sworn officers they have but I suspect the number is low, along with the ABC can and should do without - special units within the VSP could easily take care of any special needs for these two departments. I don't have any issues with others listed in § 19.2-81.

Thundar · Mar 27, 2014

arentol said:
What gets me is that implicit in the above scenario, if that is how this case goes, is that pulling a gun on an unarmed suspect that you have no reason to believe is a danger to anyone is okay. That officers should be trained to do so. Pointing a firearm at someone who is not an apparent threat should be criminal, no matter who does it. It is sad we have gotten to this state of acceptance of deadly threat over minor incidents being not just okay, but practically the suggested method.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

What you speak of is already illegal. There is no brandishing exception for stupid cops. Nobody bothers to report the brandishing offence to the magistrate when the offender is on the other side of the blue line.

scouser · Mar 27, 2014

Thundar said:
What you speak of is already illegal. There is no brandishing exception for stupid cops. Nobody bothers to report the brandishing offence to the magistrate when the offender is on the other side of the blue line.

[sarcasm] well perhaps the student should go to a magistrate and make a written statement in person for an arrest warrant to be issued. That's how it's supposed to happen in VA when no complaining leo witnessed any of the events being complained about, isn't it ? [/sarcasm]

peter nap · Mar 27, 2014

arentol said:
What gets me is that implicit in the above scenario, if that is how this case goes, is that pulling a gun on an unarmed suspect that you have no reason to believe is a danger to anyone is okay. That officers should be trained to do so. Pointing a firearm at someone who is not an apparent threat should be criminal, no matter who does it. It is sad we have gotten to this state of acceptance of deadly threat over minor incidents being not just okay, but practically the suggested method.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

There is What should be and what is.
User has a lot of experience with both.
I'll tell a story about what is in a few weeks.

Grapeshot · Mar 27, 2014

BillB said:
Grape we have been talking about VSP officers and ABC agents. I don't think many VSP officers could do what the commonwealth attorneys do. § 19.2-81 spells out what VA departments are authorized agents/officers with arrest powers. The DMV, I don't know how many sworn officers they have but I suspect the number is low, along with the ABC can and should do without - special units within the VSP could easily take care of any special needs for these two departments. I don't have any issues with others listed in § 19.2-81.

So glad you informed me about what we were talking. Here I thought the thread was about an UVA student suing the ABC. All else is but sojourn in a room with but a few similarities - interesting exercise but of no real value as the responsibilities of the various agencies are not going to change to any great degree no matter how much you might wish it.

It would seem you do not understand the inter-relationship between the Code of Virginia (statute law) and the Virginia Administrative Code (regulations). The regulations of the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board can be found in Title 3 of the VAC.

Transfering the responsibilites from one agency to another would require that all pieces of the puzzle be reassigned/redefined simultaniously. Rather difficult when the VAR regulations require a fairly lengthy period of public input.

I ain't gonna happen Charlie, the public wants rulings that taste good.

BillB · Mar 27, 2014

Grapeshot said:
So glad you informed me about what we were talking. Here I thought the thread was about an UVA student suing the ABC. All else is but sojourn in a room with but a few similarities - interesting exercise but of no real value as the responsibilities of the various agencies are not going to change to any great degree no matter how much you might wish it.

It would seem you do not understand the inter-relationship between the Code of Virginia (statute law) and the Virginia Administrative Code (regulations). The regulations of the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board can be found in Title 3 of the VAC.

Transfering the responsibilites from one agency to another would require that all pieces of the puzzle be reassigned/redefined simultaniously. Rather difficult when the VAR regulations require a fairly lengthy period of public input.

I ain't gonna happen Charlie, the public wants rulings that taste good.

The suit is about sworn ABC agents acting way out of bounds and threatening with deadly force some young female citizens who were not breaking any laws . Perhaps if this relatively small group of ABC sworn officers had better LEO training and supervision the incident and this resulting suit would not exist.

Just what duties do you think the ABC has that necessitates it having its own sworn officers with arrest powers that could not be performed by VSP officers?

I'm suggesting that the ABC get out the retail liquor business by privatizing its ABC stores because that is not a proper government function. And I'm suggesting that it downsize and transfer its sworn agents to a subdivision within the VSP where they can be better trained and managed. Had this occurred, I doubt this thread would exist.

Grapeshot · Mar 27, 2014

BillB said:
The suit is about sworn ABC agents acting way out of bounds and threatening with deadly force some young female citizens who were not breaking any laws . Perhaps if this relatively small group of ABC sworn officers had better LEO training and supervision the incident and this resulting suit would not exist.

Just what duties do you think the ABC has that necessitates it having its own sworn officers with arrest powers that could not be performed by VSP officers?

I'm suggesting that the ABC get out the retail liquor business by privatizing its ABC stores because that is not a proper government function. And I'm suggesting that it downsize and transfer its sworn agents to a subdivision within the VSP where they can be better trained and managed. Had this occurred, I doubt this thread would exist.

It did happen. IMO - the suit will go nowhere.

What "necessitates" ABC officers is the Code of Virginia and the Virginia Administrative Code as previously pointed out.

Glad to here that you think VSP officers are w/o sin.

Further persuing this line of ABC > VSP will be considered off-topic and treated accordingly.

OC for ME · Mar 28, 2014

skidmark said:
So you are suggesting that the State is going to advance the notion that trained liquor-law enforcement officers with years of experience and familiarity in observing and identifying various alcoholic beverage containers developed probable cause when they saw her coming out with a cardboard case in her arms?

Just for giggles, would anybody like to suggest which brand(s) of beer come in cardboard cases with such similarity to the one she was carrying that mistaken identity could result in observing said cardboard container?

stay safe.

Sucks to be ignored on these two points. What is the downside to letting this suit go to a jury trial? The state pays is the only downside for the state. Those nitwit Paul Blarts get fired in the worst case?

QI, the cancer that is killing liberty and justice.

Repeater · Mar 28, 2014

Thundar said:
What you speak of is already illegal. There is no brandishing exception for stupid cops. Nobody bothers to report the brandishing offence to the magistrate when the offender is on the other side of the blue line.

What you say is interesting. The statute reads (relevant parts):

§ 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person ... .

However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense. ...

B. Any police officer in the performance of his duty, in making an arrest under the provisions of this section, shall not be civilly liable in damages for injuries or death resulting to the person being arrested if he had reason to believe that the person being arrested was pointing, holding, or brandishing such firearm or air or gas operated weapon, or object that was similar in appearance, with intent to induce fear in the mind of another.

Well, "any person" seems complete. Now, did any of those ABC guys fear imminent death or grave bodily harm, such that they could invoke excuse of justification? I don't think so.

They were attempting to arrest Ms. Daly (without clearly identifying themselves as LEOs). Problem is, no one can say Daly herself was holding or brandishing a firearm.

So, it would seem for them, lose, lose.

OC for ME · Mar 28, 2014

If the sequence of events are true the citizen "grazed" the "agents" after they brandished their weapons and assaulted her car. It may be a key element of the suit being allowed to go forward that the state dropped the charges and expunged her record. The veracity of the citizen's(s) version of the events will be weighed against the agents version of the events. It seems that she was not alone.

Thundar · Mar 28, 2014

Repeater said:
What you say is interesting. The statute reads (relevant parts):

Well, "any person" seems complete. Now, did any of those ABC guys fear imminent death or grave bodily harm, such that they could invoke excuse of justification? I don't think so.

They were attempting to arrest Ms. Daly (without clearly identifying themselves as LEOs). Problem is, no one can say Daly herself was holding or brandishing a firearm.

So, it would seem for them, lose, lose.

Yes, the law is quite clear. Point a gun at someone inducing fear of being shot and you are indeed guilty of brandishing. That is either a class 1 mis. or a class 6 felony depending on your proximity to a school.

The action can be justifiable or excusable, but that determination is the job of the judge or jury based upon the hearing of all evidence.

UVA student sues the ABC - does she have a case?

Repeater

Regular Member

va_tazdad

Regular Member

arentol

New member

BillB

Regular Member

va_tazdad

Regular Member

BillB

Regular Member

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior

BillB

Regular Member

Thundar

Regular Member

scouser

Regular Member

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior

BillB

Regular Member

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior

OC for ME

Regular Member

Repeater

Regular Member

OC for ME

Regular Member

Thundar

Regular Member