• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Federal lawsuit question

slidelock

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
12
Location
, ,
Is it possible in a federal lawsuit, such as has been filed by this organization, to file against the officers separately and jointly(assuming that's the correct phrase) against the officers and their employer? In other words if the city wants to settle and leave the suit against the officers ongoing, is that possible to do. Did that happen in this lawsuit? Thanks Mike
 

Wisconsin Carry Inc.

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
155
Location
Onalaska, Wisconsin, USA
Two answers

First, NO this didn't happen in the current suit against Madison. WCI is seeking an injunction to prevent the Chief from implementing the stated (STOP, Cuff, Seize, ID, Cite) policy.

Second, YES that WAS part of suit against Racine. Racine offered a $10K judgment to get the city & officers off the hook for the unlawful arrest.

If there is a civil suit against Madison for the unlawful arrest/harassment of the Madison-5, the city AND the individual officers will be defendants. That decision won't be made until after the disorderly charges are disposed of and WCI confers with our legal team.
 

slidelock

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
12
Location
, ,
Sounds good

So you can, file jointly and separately against the officers? My thinking is that unless those individual officers have to pay personally, any settlement is unlikely to change this official misconduct.
 

bnhcomputing

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,709
Location
Wisconsin, USA
So you can, file jointly and separately against the officers? My thinking is that unless those individual officers have to pay personally, any settlement is unlikely to change this official misconduct.

The courts have consistently held that an officer who knowingly and willingly violates your constitutional rights looses "qualified immunity" and is individually liable. That doesn't mean the city won't make an offer of judgment like Racine did.
 

slidelock

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
12
Location
, ,
Question

"Offer of judgment"? Does that create precedence the same as a court judgment? If not I would want to continue the case against the officers. A judgment against those officers wouldn't have to be much to get the desired effect.
 

slidelock

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
12
Location
, ,
I must be blonde today

I guess what I am asking, are the officers involved going to have personally make restitution?
 

bnhcomputing

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,709
Location
Wisconsin, USA
I guess what I am asking, are the officers involved going to have personally make restitution?
The lawsuit(s) do seek monetary damages from the individual officers, but that doesn't mean they will actually pay. If an "offer of judgment" is made, and as a condition, the officers are "off the hook," then depending on the other conditions/terms they may be released from a financial burden.

Do I think they should each have to individually pay, HECK YEA! Will the court look at it the same way? UNKNOWN.
 

slidelock

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
12
Location
, ,
Hence my question

Is it possible to file jointly and separately against the officers? If so, you could accept the cities settlement and not necessarily against the officers. Then they gotta pay themselves. I hope. So my question is, can it be done?
 

bnhcomputing

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,709
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Is it possible to file jointly and separately against the officers? If so, you could accept the cities settlement and not necessarily against the officers. Then they gotta pay themselves. I hope. So my question is, can it be done?

It IS possible to settle with the municipality and continue on with the officers. However, most UNIONS wouldn't react well to the municipality throwing the officers under the bus so-to-speak, so to my knowledge it's never been done. To my knowledge, the municipality stands with the officers especially when they are "following orders" so any offer of judgment would include releasing both the municipality and the officers.
 

slidelock

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
12
Location
, ,
Frustrating

I keep asking the same questions over and over
(1) Can you file jointly and separately against leo and their employers
(2)Accept the employer settlement, refuse the one for the officers.
Thereby forcing leo to pay their own bills?
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
huh

filing a 42 usc 1983 action against the officers (removes their implied immunity)
thereby negating their insurance.
they have to pay out of their own pockets.
see st. john V. alamagordo
21000$ out of court settlement.
 

bnhcomputing

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,709
Location
Wisconsin, USA
I keep asking the same questions over and over
(1) Can you file jointly and separately against leo and their employers YES
(2)Accept the employer settlement, refuse the one for the officers.
Thereby forcing leo to pay their own bills? YES

You CAN do both but as I stated, no offer of judgment will come forward without covering the officer, it just isn't done to my knowledge.
 

slidelock

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
12
Location
, ,
Aaaaargh!

Let me try a different tack. I am not a lawyer so bear with me. My understanding is a settlement carries no precedent. A judgment however can create precedent. IMHO the only outcome that has any real meaning is a judgement against the officers they have to pay themselves. Anybody want to opine on that likelihood of that happening in this case?
 

Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
1,197
Location
, ,
Let me try a different tack. I am not a lawyer so bear with me. My understanding is a settlement carries no precedent. A judgment however can create precedent. IMHO the only outcome that has any real meaning is a judgement against the officers they have to pay themselves. Anybody want to opine on that likelihood of that happening in this case?

In the case of Racine, we did not settle, we received a judgment.

As Doug points out:

Precedence is not created by just any old court decision. Search on "legal precedent".

At Federal District Court, decisions are not published and are not binding precedent. How much "weight" do they hold? From a legal binding precedent standpoint "not much" From a persuasive precedent standpoint "depends who you ask".

From a legal standpoint its "persuasive" precedent. Other courts, other judges can look at it (though its not binding) and consider it (though its not a published decision, so they may not even be able to find it) and decide something totally different. Appellate court begins to establish binding precedent in the "stare decisis" sense of precedent.

In the case of Racine, the precedent set was more of a regional awareness for other municipalities that unlawful arrest given the facts of that case resulted in a judgement against Racine. IANALBWHTOR (I am not a lawyer but we have them on retainer) but its my understanding that you won't likely see "Wisconsin Carry v. City of Racine et al" in future case law as its a Federal District Court Decision which is non-binding legal precedent and an unpublished decision.

What you SHOULD see is that other municipalities who see the news media stories regarding the case will be on notice that they face similar repercussions for similar unlawful actions of their officers.

Of course, as Madison demonstrates, not all municipalities are deterred.

I will get you a specific answer to your question regarding what, and how you can get an individual officer to have to pay out of pocket for their unlawful conduct while they are performing their duties under the authority of the department they work for.
 

slidelock

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
12
Location
, ,
Thanks!

Here, in Ohio, we face similar problems and I have been trying to get the answer to this specific question. I look forward to what you come up with. Thanks again. Mike
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
It Appears

that an "Offer of Judgment" is essentially an offer of settlement with benefits/penalties. For the Defendants, although they have a "judgment" entered against them it is essentially meaningless in terms of future issues. In return, they put the Plaintiffs in a box. If the Plaintiffs do not accept, even if they win they would be liable for costs from the point of offer if their "winnings" did not exceed the amount of the Defendant's offer. No issues are decided and no declaratory rulings and/or injunctions from the bench. The city/PD/etc. are out a few bucks (not their own) and are free to continue their bad acts. Shouldn't the goal be a judgment/ruling by the judge saying something like:

1. The PD acted unlawfully when they (demanded ID under threat of arrest).
2. The PD is enjoined from (approaching OC Joe without RAS).
3. OC Joe is awarded $50,000 plus attorney's fees and costs.
4. Court declares that simple OC cannot constitute any part the basis for a DC charge.
 

Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
1,197
Location
, ,
To answer the question of how to "make" the officers pay, the answer is "we have no control over who pays".

We are suing the officers as individuals, but we can't stop the municipality they work for from paying the judgement on their behalf.

For the Defendants, although they have a "judgment" entered against them it is essentially meaningless in terms of future issues.

I guess it depends on what you consider meaningless.

The $10,000 payout wasn't meaningless to Racine and the people of Racine who were not happy about paying for their officers breaking the law. Keep in mind these municipalities spend lots of $ on attorneys as well.

Even if you go to decision, at federal district court, its non-binding precedent and unpublished decisions.

Unfortunately there is no silver bullet when dealing with police officers/departments that operate outside the law but rather a multitude of tactis, civil suits, public awareness/pressure, etc.
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
Many Decisions of Federal District Courts

are published. Go to any decent law library and you'll find volume after volume of the Federal Supplement. There are many reasons decisions aren't published but a published decision would have substantial influence in the same court (e.g. the Eastern District of Wisconsin) and possibly beyond. If a deal is cut, whatever you call it, the decision almost certainly will not be published. Of course, a decision of the Court of Appeals would be much better, which is why these suits should be taken all the way to the appellate level if possible. Madison certainly knew about Racine. Were they hesitant? They don't care about money. They don't care about public opinion. They will care about an violating an order from a federal judge. It's the only thing that will put their personal liberty in jeopardy. It isn't critical if a decision is published or non-binding precedent because it is binding on the parties in the case at bar.



To answer the question of how to "make" the officers pay, the answer is "we have no control over who pays".

We are suing the officers as individuals, but we can't stop the municipality they work for from paying the judgement on their behalf.



I guess it depends on what you consider meaningless.

The $10,000 payout wasn't meaningless to Racine and the people of Racine who were not happy about paying for their officers breaking the law. Keep in mind these municipalities spend lots of $ on attorneys as well.

Even if you go to decision, at federal district court, its non-binding precedent and unpublished decisions.

Unfortunately there is no silver bullet when dealing with police officers/departments that operate outside the law but rather a multitude of tactis, civil suits, public awareness/pressure, etc.
 
Last edited:
Top