Jun
05

Picking And Chosing Which Cops To Prosecute

There aren’t enough prison cells in the federal Bureau of Prisons for all the police officers who have pushed a detainee, and then lied about it in a police report. So it's hard for me to fathom why federal officials singled out Meriden’s Evan Cossette for prosecution. But there he was, convicted of shoving a drunken prisoner and then lying. Why prosecute this case and ignore so many more?

I put kids through college suing police officers, typically for using unreasonable force. In one case, witnesses saw a cop slam a kid in the head with a police baton as the kid sat handcuffed on the street. In another case, guards smacked a prisoner around after a failed escape attempt. A female officer was once found liable for slapping a young woman in the face. And then there was the case in which a cop used his nightstick to clobber a drunken fellow who mocked him. Juries awarded significant money damages in these cases, and many more.

In none of these cases did law enforcement officers lose their jobs, much less face prison. In all of these cases, the officers’ employers, and not the cops themselves, paid the money damages. In other words, taxpayers provided what amounted to insurance for these cops. I didn’t see any federal prosecutors chest-thumping for justice then.

Police liability for the use of excessive force is reflected in a complex body of law.

Ordinary citizens can sue a police officer for violating their right to be free from unreasonable force, a right rooted in the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Such a legal action is brought under a provision of a Civil War era federal law known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, passed during the darker hours of Reconstruction when it was clear that local Southern courtrooms might remain closed to people of color.

It wasn’t until the mid-twentieth century that this act was used as a means of suing police officers. Thirteen Chicago cops burst into the home of Monroe family. The family was made to stand by as officers ransacked their home. Mr. Monroe was taken the police station and held incommunicado for two days while he was questioned about a murder. The police officers did not have a warrant to enter the home, or lawful authority to take Mr. Monroe against his will to the police station.

No charges were ever lodged against Mr. Monroe, but he did sue, relying upon the little used provision of federal law that permits a person to sue a “state actor” for violating federal rights “under color of law.” Chicago’s lawyer argued the men had acted outside the scope of their authority as lawmen, and hence, were not state actors.

In Monroe v. Pape, the Supreme Court created a legal device that made it possible to sue police officers for money damages for the on-the-job misconduct. The court held that when officers are sued in their “individual capacities,” they could be forced to pay money damages. Suing them in their “official capacities” might, after all, violate the immunity that police officers typically enjoy as agents of their respective sovereigns. (Remind me sometime to devote a column to the outrage of sovereign and municipal immunity.)

In theory, successful individual capacity suits resulted in judgments the officers, and not their employers, should pay. But in some states, such as Connecticut, state and local governments typically pay the damages, a process known as indemnification. The thinking goes something like this: If we require police officers to pay out of their own pocket for the mistakes they make on the job, they might become too timid in the performance of their duties. Indemnification was sound social policy as a means of assuring the police weren’t always looking over their shoulders when making split-second decisions about whether to use force. Timid cops too often end up dead.

I’m not sure how the federal government’s decision to prosecute garden variety claims of police misconduct is going to make the streets any safer. State and municipal governments will go ahead and pay compensatory damages awards under indemnification agreements. But the federal government will send a cop to prison for the same conduct. If ever you wanted an illustration of just how dysfunctional federalism can be – parallel state and federal government enforcing laws over the same people at the same time – the Cossette case provides one.

A routine jury instruction given in every case involving allegations of police use of unreasonable force goes something like this: Not every push, pull or shove, even if is seems unnecessary in the calm of a judge’s chambers, violates the Fourth Amendment. Police officers are expected to make instantaneous decisions about how much force they must use to respond to a perceived or actual threat. We train officers in the use of force. Jurors are reminded that they must evaluate an officer’s decision based not on 20/20 hindsight, but from the perspective of an officer on the scene.

When money damages are at stake, the federal judiciary goes out of its way to protect police officers from the consequences of their mistakes. A legal doctrine known as qualified immunity has given judges the power to make sure most police misconduct cases never get to a jury. This judicially created device permits judges to toss all but the most egregious cases.

Evan Cossette didn’t get the benefit of the doubt in a federal courtroom. He was hauled into court and called a criminal by federal prosecutors. He now faces imprisonment. I’ve watched the videotape in his and looked at the police reports. I can name plenty of cops who are walking beats who’ve been accused of similar or worse.

Folks sometimes accuse me of being a cop-hater because I spent a decade or so suing police officers for money back before judges barred the courthouse doors by generous application of qualified immunity. Today, I represent a lot of cops, sometimes against federal prosecutors, but most often against accusations made by other officers. I’ve learned something representing lawmen: They are vicious when it comes to how they treat one another. The only professional group that rivals cops in pettiness and rancorous litigation against colleagues are school teachers.

I don’t hate cops. They’ve a tough, often impossible job to do. They have to keep the peace while the rest of us struggle with the growing gap between the rhetoric of the American dream and its failed promise. Just how federal prosecutors decided it was open season on local lawmen is a story that remains to be told.

Plenty of local cops were shaking their heads this week. Evan Cossette, a federal felon? Prison bound? Who’s next? They’re wondering. Don’t be surprised if the streets seem a little less safe for awhile. My hunch is cops will be playing it safe, lest an ambitious federal prosecutor comes scalp-hunting.

Related topics: Journal Register Columns
Comments (1)
Posted on June 6, 2013 at 9:57 am by Mike
Officer Cossette & others
Bravo Atty. Pattis, Bravo. Excellent article. I served in emergency services for over 30 years. While not a police officer, i often stood shoulder to shoulder with them at various incidents. I am, to this day, astounded at the abuse these men and women took wihile using, what I consider, reasonable force to bring order to a n out of control situation. I have seen these men and women injured and, in a few cases, left with injuries that will effect them for the rest of their lives. In my view, the vast majority are good hard working people who do a dangerous job for money that many would scoff at. (The counter argument can be made and has been made that some officers pull in over $100,000 dollars a year in salary. While this is certainly true, lets remember that they are paid hourly and therefore spent valuable time away from their families putting in those hours that allowed them to be paid that amount) I often wonder how many people that criticize the police ( and it seems to be a large majority) would do their jobs. You watch and listen to individuals criticize and rip these fine men and women apart but, ask them who they call when they or a family members life or property is in danger. To me, the most disgusting and atrocious case of police being mistreated is in East Haven. Where cops, doing their jobs protecting the citizens of that community are arrested for just that- doing their jobs. Sure, a couple mistakes were made. No doubt given a second opportunity these cops might have done things differently. However, the government , OUR government has destroyed their lives. Destroyed. Why, because one officer stopped illegal immigrants at a disproportionate rate. Gee, no one has ever mentioned how many of them that were stopped wound up having no license, insurance, or registration. What would the naysayers say if one of these illegals had run over their child and killed them or struck their car leaving their husband, wife or child paralyzed only to find out that they had no insurance and therefore could not collect any money to compensate them or pay for their medical bills. The naysayers would no longer be saying "hey, stop picking on them" they would be screaming "Where were the cops? Why didn't they stop them?" A priest, a man of the cloth, someone tasked with forgiving us mere mortals runs around videotaping officers doing their jobs. Why does he not pull them aside and counsel them. Tell them they are wrong and try to forgive them. No, instead a cop who had been shot in the line of duty and nearly died protecting the community he swore to protect is forced from his profession and now faces jail time ( wow, prison should be a real walk in the park for him! "Hey, don't I know you from somewhere"?) Another highly respected officer who, without question, had saved lives is arrested by OUR Justice department (funny name for a department that seems to care about everything but justice. Hey, Atty General Holder, how's that "fast and furious" operation working out for you. You know, the one where you lost track of thousands of guns where at least one was used to kill a border patrol agent.) I'm sorry. I guess I'm just old school. My parents taught me right from wrong and made me respect the police. They didn't blame the police for any failures they may have made raising me. Today, everything is the cops fault. It's almost ironic that the outstanding work done by law enforcement in Boston in identifying immigrants turned terrorists is being praised when here in Connecticut police officers are arrested and face jail time for investigating individuals that COULD be planning or involved in similar incidents. Gotta love the federal government!!! Please do not misconstrue my comments as being anti-immigrant. All of us were immigrants at one time. However, we seem to have followed the rules and not used the brave men and women of our police departments as scape goats. People who would give up their lives for you in a heart beat that are now facing prison time for being willing to do that.
For Display:
What is 2 + 2?
Confidential:
(Won't be displayed with comment)

Link must be approved, then will show on this page.

x

About Norm Pattis

Norm Pattis is a Connecticut based trial lawyer focused on high stakes criminal cases and civil right violations. He is a veteran of more than 100 jury trials, many resulting in acquittals for people charged with serious crimes, multi-million dollar civil rights and discrimination verdicts, and scores of cases favorably settled.

Personal Website

www.normpattis.com
www.normpattis.com

Law Firm Website

www.pattislawfirm.com
www.pattislawfirm.com

I believe that the state is a necessary fiction and that failing to combat it is the first step toward tyranny.
– Norm Pattis

Disclaimer:

Nothing in this blog should be considered legal advice about your case. You need a lawyer who understands the context of your life and situation. What are offered here are merely suggested lines of inquiry you may explore with your lawyer.

Pattis Video