In a stunning setback for the Seattle Police Department, a federal civil court jury on Monday found patrol officers made a false and unlawful arrest and used excessive force when they detained and then jailed a young Seattle man on charges of obstruction and resisting arrest.
Romelle Bradford's case was featured in a Seattle P-I investigation of obstruction arrests.
The nine-member jury awarded Romelle Bradford $268,000 in damages. Though they rejected punitive damages, they also found the 2006 arrest was a federal civil rights violation, which means the city must pay Bradford's attorneys fees, an amount not yet determined.
An obviously happy Bradford, 22, said he dreamed last week he was going to win the case. But he had faced a tough uphill battle in waging the lawsuit. The city hasn't lost a police misconduct lawsuit before a judge or jury in more than a decade.
Bradford wasn't seriously injured during the arrest, yet Lem Howell, Bradford's attorney, argued his client suffered an "unseen injury" because the promising young man must from now on answer "yes" whenever a potential employer inquires whether he has ever been arrested.
Juror Debbie Girdler said she was particularly offended that police not only arrested Bradford, but booked and jailed him overnight after it should have been clear to them that Bradford did nothing wrong. Supervising police Sgt. Eric Zerr explained during a deposition that he approved the booking and jailing of Bradford that night in part because they needed to check whether he had suffered any injuries during the arrest and to verify his identification. Police officials told the Seattle P-I that is not a common practice.
"He should have been released," said Girdler, a retired software engineer from Bellevue. "Here we have a person who's never been in trouble with the police. Now he has an arrest record. Because they want to check his ID and his health? That's wrong."
Bradford and the city had gone to mediation, during which Howell said his client would have been ready to settle for $150,000, though he had hoped for $250,000. The city offered only a "nuisance value" of $10,000, then upped it to $25,000 just before trial -- still unacceptable, Howell said.
The arresting officer in the case, Jacob Briskey, said he was "disappointed" by the verdict but offered no other comment.
Bradford has a clean record and in 2003 was named youth of the year in the state for overcoming chronic truancy, getting good grades and for his work helping other disadvantaged youngsters at the Rainier Vista Boys & Girls Club in South Seattle. His case was featured in a Seattle P-I investigation of obstruction arrests, titled "Strong Arm of the Law."
The P-I found blacks were eight times more likely than whites to be arrested for obstruction, and that about half of the cases were dismissed by the City Attorney's Office before trial. Bradford is black.
The criminal charges against him were dismissed before any attempt at prosecution.
It was after a club dance Bradford was supervising in August 2006 that he and club volunteers summoned police because of a potentially unruly crowd outside the club. Briskey, 26, was then a rookie officer. He arrived as things were settling down, spotted Bradford jogging down the street and ordered him to stop. When Bradford didn't halt immediately, Briskey rushed at him and slammed him to the ground.
Bradford said he didn't think the officer was talking to him because he said he was wearing a red T-shirt clearly identifying him as a Boys & Girls Club member. He said he was holding up his club badge and showing the officer his T-shirt when he said the officer decked him with his forearm.
Using the F-word, the young officer threatened to break Bradford's arm as he handcuffed him in front of several youngsters who were protesting that he was, indeed, a staff member trying to help.
After a police station interview in which Bradford insisted he was a staff member, police nevertheless booked and jailed him overnight. Briskey claimed Bradford's failure to immediately stop justified the obstructing charge and that a hesitation to offer one arm during handcuffing -- which Bradford doesn't recall -- justified the resisting charge.
Criminal defense attorneys refer to "obstructing a public officer" arrests by two other monikers: "Contempt of cop" and "the cover charge." Several told the P-I those nicknames are applied because the charges are sometimes abused to punish people for their being "mouthy" or to cover up when police might have used wrongful force against an innocent person.
"Sergeants, lieutenants, captains, assistant chiefs and chiefs should be alerted to the contempt of cop charge," Howell said after Monday's verdict. "These charges by their very nature are suspicious."
Several jurors said after issuing their ruling that they feel the department's internal investigation unit should investigate the case. Howell said he agreed.
Moses Garcia, the private attorney who defended the city and the police against the lawsuit, said there would be no point now in conducting an internal investigation, though he added that ironically an internal investigation might have provided him with more evidence to win his case. He also noted that Bradford didn't file a complaint with internal investigators, a tactical move by his attorney.
The jury didn't rule entirely in Bradford's favor. They found that Briskey had "reasonable suspicion to stop and temporarily detain" Bradford prior to arresting him. Thus they rejected an "illegal seizure" claim. They also found that Briskey didn't act "with evil motive, actual malice, deliberate violence or oppression, with intent to injure, or in willful disregard" for Bradford's rights. They also rejected other claims of "malicious prosecution," "abuse of process" and "assault and battery," denying an unspecified request for punitive damages.
But they did find that Briskey lacked "probable cause" to arrest Bradford, and that the arrest was unlawful. They said the force used was excessive under the federal civil rights law.
Several jurors said their verdict should send a message to the city to better supervise young officers. Several questioned department procedures and leadership. They even questioned the officer's use of the F-word in front of a crowd of Boys & Girls Club youngsters.
"I feel really strongly about (the need to examine the case)," said jury foreman Charles Young of Bothell. "I wouldn't want to be treated like that."
After a four-day trial, the jury took a day and a half to deliberate. Jurors said they spent a lot of time studying the statutes, particularly the obstructing statute, and comparing them to the events. They said they also struggled with the question of whether there was probable cause to arrest. They said though this case involved a civil-rights violation, race issues didn't arise in their deliberations. Briskey is white, but a more senior officer who assisted in the arrest is black.
Magistrate Judge James Donohue told jurors after they issued their verdict that this was "a very difficult case" and that "he was glad he didn't have to (decide) it," Girdler said.
The jurors said they felt Briskey made mistakes because of his lack of experience, and several said they felt badly for him.
"We felt that there should be better mentoring of young officers," said juror David Pippin, a Seattle schoolteacher, who added that Bradford was also very young and shouldn't have been left by his supervisors to oversee the dance that night.
"This was a case about babies arresting babies," said Girdler.
Garcia said he was disappointed in the verdict and took personal responsibility for it. He said he felt he must not have gotten the point across, because the evidence was on his side. He said the police had plenty of probable cause to arrest Bradford and even to jail him on suspicion of obstructing and arresting.
Seattle police have not lost an officer misconduct case before a judge or a jury for at least a decade and probably longer, said Anne Bremner, a partner at Stafford Frey Cooper, the firm that defends the city against such lawsuits. Some notable cases have been settled with payments made to plaintiffs, including a recent excessive force case on Capitol Hill and the settlement with WTO demonstrators.
Bremner said she has not lost such a case before a judge or jury in the 20 years she has defended Seattle officers against lawsuits.
"I was surprised," she said. "Appeal options are being analyzed. The verdict was disappointing given the fact the officers acted in good faith."
Jurors had to sort through conflicting statements. While Bradford and numerous witnesses said he was wearing the identifying red T-shirt, the police officers testified that he was wearing a plain white T-shirt. They did not explain why they took Bradford's red staff T-shirt into custody when they arrested him.
Zerr, the supervising sergeant, also made a misleading statement on an after-action "use of force" report, justifying Briskey's actions. He twice claimed that Bradford took a swing at Briskey. Even Briskey admitted that wasn't true. Zerr later explained that he interpreted Bradford's holding up of his identification badge, which was attached to a key chain, as a move tantamount to taking a swing at the officer. Briskey also claimed he thought the keys might be used as a weapon.
Jurors said Zerr's statements didn't affect them during their deliberations.
Bradford has not yet obtained his high school diploma, but is working on a GED and plans to attend computer classes at Bellevue Community College. He said he hopes to someday work for Microsoft, where he said he has been offered an internship. He said his earlier truancy had affected his ability to finish high school at one point, and he was slowed again by the arrest and the aftermath. He said after the verdict that "a weight has been lifted off of me."
No comments:
Post a Comment