The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: sue
Boehner Says He Will File Suit Over Obama’s Job Performance

Boehner Says He Will File Suit Over Obama’s Job Performance

By Michael A. Memoli, Tribune Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-OH) on Wednesday threatened to file a lawsuit against President Barack Obama later this year for “not faithfully executing” the nation’s laws, a new escalation in a Republican campaign against what it views as presidential overreach.

Democrats dismissed the move as an election-year stunt intended to motivate GOP conservatives.

Speaking to reporters, Boehner said he was acting “on behalf of the institution” to prevent a further erosion of power in the legislative branch. He said his action was not a precursor to impeachment.

“The Constitution makes it clear that the president’s job is to faithfully execute the laws. And in my view the president has not faithfully executed the laws,” Boehner said. “Fighting for this is in the best interests of the Congress.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called Boehner’s new action “subterfuge” that is meant to appeal to the most rabid elements of the party’s conservative base.

“They’re doing nothing here and so they have to give some aura of activity,” Pelosi said. “There really needs to be an adult in that room of the Republican caucus.”

Initiating a lawsuit of the type Boehner intends to file requires a vote of the House’s Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, of which Republicans have a majority. The same group voted along party lines to act as the defense in the Supreme Court’s consideration of the Defense of Marriage Act, after the Obama administration said it would no longer defend the law.

In a memo sent to House colleagues Wednesday afternoon, Boehner said the full House would vote on authorizing the suit.

The GOP-led House has already taken similar symbolic steps. In March, the chamber passed a bill that would require the Justice Department to notify Congress of any instance in which a federal official decides not to enforce a specific law or policy, and another that would give either the House or Senate standing in court to challenge an executive decision to not enforce a certain law.

Boehner has long maintained that Obama’s unilateral executive actions, including deferring deportation of young immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children, have made it harder to build support among Republicans for more significant legislative efforts.

Photo: Talk Radio News Service via Flickr

Seattle Police Officers Sue Over Reforms

Seattle Police Officers Sue Over Reforms

By Steve Miletich, Mike Carter and Jennifer Sullivan, The Seattle Times

SEATTLE — In a highly public rejection of federally mandated reforms, more than 100 Seattle police officers filed a lawsuit Wednesday asking a federal judge to block what they called “mechanical” and unrealistic use-of-force policies imposed on them under a court-ordered consent decree.

The 43-page suit alleges policies stemming from an agreement between the city and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) stoked a “bold, new disregard for police authority in the streets of Seattle,” putting officers and the public in unreasonable danger.

The civil-rights suit contends the changes have effectively created “hesitation and paralysis” among officers, stripping them of their constitutional and legal right to make reasonable, split-second judgments in the line of duty.

As a result, officers are afraid to do their job for fear of being second-guessed over burdensome, complicated and voluminous policies, the suit says.

“Aside from evidence that officers are hesitating and/or failing to use appropriate and lawfully justified force to address threats safely and effectively, there is evidence of a dramatic decrease in proactive police work to investigate and stop crime,” the suit alleges in a reference to what some have called depolicing.

Just two weeks ago, a Seattle Police Department report revealed steep drops in the enforcement of lower-level crimes, traffic offenses and infractions in recent years as officers have displayed less willingness to seek out illegal activity.

The suit alleges officers have turned in Tasers in large numbers because of confusion about how and when to use them and will testify about an “insidious” reluctance to respond to backup calls, all out of fear of being exposed to unreasonable discipline or termination.

The suit, filed by 123 officers, detectives and sergeants, largely from the department’s North Precinct, was brought without an attorney, although a civil-rights attorney in Washington, D.C. assisted.

It also was filed without the approval or support of their union, the Seattle Police Officers’ Guild (SPOG).

The suit names U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney Jenny Durkan in Seattle, top DOJ attorneys, and Mayor Ed Murray, along with current and past Seattle city officials and Merrick Bobb, the federal monitor overseeing court-ordered reforms to curtail excessive force and biased policing.

The city and DOJ civil-rights attorneys agreed to the reforms in 2012 after the Justice Department found that officers had engaged in a pattern or practice of excessive force, a conclusion the lawsuit rejects as flawed and unproved.

The Justice Department also cited troubling evidence of biased policing.

The lawsuit, for the first time, brought to the surface widespread hostility within the Police Department toward the new use-of-force policies, standing in marked contrast to top commanders and city officials who have repeatedly embraced reforms.

Murray, in a terse statement issued Wednesday afternoon, said he yet to review the lawsuit and it would be inappropriate to immediately comment.

“But I will say: the Seattle Police Department is under a federally-mandated court order, in part because of a disturbing pattern of unnecessary use of force and other forms of unconstitutional policing,” Murray said.

“The police department will comply with that court order. The City of Seattle will not fight the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. This is not the 1960s.”

The new use-of-force policy, for the first time, defined “force” (“any physical coercion by an officer in the performance of their duties”) and advised when it can be used and how much is appropriate under the circumstances.

Officers must report all but the most minimal use of force to supervisors, and shall “use only the force necessary to perform their duties” and “with minimal reliance upon the use of physical force.”

They also are required, if circumstances allow, to attempt to de-escalate tense situations through “advisements, warnings, verbal persuasion, and other tactics” to reduce the need for force.

When using force is unavoidable, the policy cautions officers to use only the force necessary to make the arrest, and says that their conduct before force was used may be considered by the department in determining whether force was appropriate.

Procedural manuals lay out weapon-by-weapon guidance, new reporting guidelines and the policies for the department’s new Force Investigation Team (FIT), which will roll out on incidents involving the highest levels of force and officer-involved shootings.

The suit brought Wednesday seeks an injunction against the policies and declaratory judgment that they’re unconstitutional, as well as unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

“We participate in continuing and extensive training regarding suspects’ rights and have never sought a blank check on using force,” the suit says.

Ron Smith, SPOG’s president, said of the officers who filed suit, “I knew they were unhappy. I knew they were contemplating this action. I met with them to hear their concerns at their request, back in March. I didn’t hear back from them again.”

Smith said he gave the group “a conduit” to the Community Police Commission, created as part of the consent decree, and that they shared their concerns with the commission.

“I assumed they were going to get the policy changed in the areas of concern,” Smith said. “I would like to say the policy is overly broad, poorly written and somewhat confusing. However, I believe the policy could have been changed with collaboration with the Community Police Commission.”

Smith said the federal filing “is not supported” by the Guild, and is not being funded by the union.

He said the dissenters, who represent 10 percent of his membership, started going precinct to precinct in January looking for signatures and were told to stop by command staff.

The lead plaintiff on the suit, Robert Mahoney, couldn’t be reached for comment Wednesday.

Mahoney in 2009 was given 30 days off without pay after an 18-year-old Explorer cadet he had been supervising accused him of kissing her and putting his tongue in her mouth.

The discipline was the most severe that could be imposed short of termination by then-Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske.

Mahoney denied he kissed the woman, which resulted in Kerlikowske imposing what could have been a career-ending finding of “dishonesty.”

The Public Safety Civil Service Commission upheld the suspension and allegations of unprofessional conduct, but threw out the dishonesty finding.

Wednesday’s suit was assigned to U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman, the chief federal district judge in Western Washington.

The consent decree is being overseen by U.S. District Judge James Robart, who could hear the suit if it is transferred to him.

The suit singles out Robart, the Justice Department and Bobb, the monitor, for criticism, asserting that officers, for example, have more training and experience than they do in dealing with mentally ill offenders who often abuse drugs and act violently.

The Constitution “does not permit judges, or in this case DOJ and its Monitor, to look back in perfect hindsight, from the safety of their chambers or offices, to second-guess what patrol officers actually faced at the moment and know from real experience on the streets,” the suit said.

Photo: Maxime via Flickr

Vegetarian Activists Sue Two Baltimore Cops, Allege Free Speech Violation

Vegetarian Activists Sue Two Baltimore Cops, Allege Free Speech Violation

By Luke Broadwater, The Baltimore Sun

BALTIMORE — Vegetarian activists have sued in federal court two Baltimore police officers who forced them to stop leafleting at the Inner Harbor — the latest legal front after years of disputes over the constitutional rights of protesters in the city.

A former Baltimore teacher and three other vegetarian activists filed the lawsuit last week in U.S. District Court over events that took place in May 2011. The lawsuit, which does not name the city nor the Police Department, alleges the officers violated their constitutional rights.

Since then, a number of other lawsuits have prompted institutional changes. City officials agreed last year to loosen restrictions on when and where demonstrations can take place, and the Police Department recently instituted new rules ordering officers to allow citizens to protest in more locations and film officers in public places.

But the plaintiffs say they still have concerns that some rank-and-file officers aren’t following the rules — or the Constitution. They contend they had received permission from city government three years ago to leaflet in the area.

“The goal is to make sure that no officer feels they are above the law,” said Bruce Friedrich, 44, who was then a ninth-grade teacher at Baltimore Freedom Academy and now works for the animal protection group Farm Sanctuary. The officers “were trying to take advantage of people they thought didn’t know their rights.”

The Police Department and the mayor’s office declined to comment, citing the pending lawsuit.

Friedrich said he and six others were passing out more than 1,000 pro-vegetarian leaflets in downtown Baltimore, near the Barnes & Noble bookstore and the National Aquarium, among other locations, when police officers ordered them to leave the area.

Friedrich, who said officers refused to look at their permit documentation, began to record the officers’ actions on his cellphone, and the police ordered him to stop, according to the lawsuit.

“Unless they were very badly trained, they knew they were violating our rights and they did it anyway,” Friedrich said. “We’re attempting to ensure future people are able to exercise their rights.”

Friedrich’s attorney, Bryan Pease, said the plaintiffs had no issue with city policies and therefore chose to sue the officers individually. In such cases, the city represents the officers in court and covers paying any judgments for on-duty issues.

“The officers directly violated the city’s own policy,” Pease said.

He said he did not know the officers’ full names but would learn them upon receiving discovery materials in court. The city’s police union did not respond to a request for comment.

The Police Department has been sued multiple times over free speech issues.

Last year, Baltimore officials approved a payment of $98,000 to the American Civil Liberties Union to settle a federal lawsuit over protesters’ rights in Baltimore. In settling the suit — in which a group of anti-war protesters called the “Women in Black” were plaintiffs — city officials agreed to change the rules.

The new rules allow groups of up to 30 people to protest or pass out fliers without obtaining a permit at all city parks and 10 designated locations, including the downtown McKeldin Square. The rules also provide for “instant permits” to be issued by police when larger-than-expected crowds attend a protest.

McKeldin Square, long a city-designated protest site, had been taken over for two months in late 2011 by Occupy Baltimore, a national movement against income disparity, among other issues.

The protesters said the city’s Department of Recreation and Parks refused their request to permanently occupy all of the square. The city offered to provide tents in exchange for other concessions, but talks stalled and police cleared the square in a pre-dawn raid in December.

New locations that had previously been off-limits to protesters without a permit include Rash Field, Kaufman Pavilion, the area west of the Baltimore Visitor Center on the Inner Harbor, and the grass field between the World Trade Center and the National Aquarium.

Another lawsuit prompted the Baltimore Police Department to institute a new policy that prohibits officers from stopping people from taping or photographing police actions. Those new rules were unveiled as the city agreed to pay $250,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by Christopher Sharp, who said police seized his cellphone and deleted the video of an arrest at the Preakness Stakes in 2010.

Baltimore Police Commissioner Anthony Batts in March held a rare joint news conference with the American Civil Liberties Union, apologized to Sharp and declared: “We’re changing the culture in the Police Department as a whole.”

David Rocah, a staff attorney with Maryland’s ACLU chapter, was involved with both of the recent settlements.

“When we filed our ‘Women in Black’ suit, the rules that existed were not constitutional,” he said. “There ended up being a complete rewrite of the park rules in a effort to make them constitutional. The rules that came out of that are a significant improvement.”

Rocah added that he hopes the new rules will prevent future violations of the First Amendment. “Our goal when we litigate these cases is to vindicate the important rights at stake and to ensure that the problems don’t recur,” he said.

Friedrich’s suit does not seek specific damages. In addition to constitutional violations, it also accuses the officers of battery and unreasonable seizure. Friedrich, of Washington D.C., is joined as plaintiff in the suit by his wife, Alka Chandna, and fellow activists Elena Johnson of Cockeysville and Lesley Parker-Rollins of Lutherville.

Friedrich said the fliers he was passing out were not offensive in nature.

“They had vegetarian recipes and information about vegetarianism,” he said. “The whole thing was completely absurd.”

AFP Photo

Atheist Family Sues Schools, Calling Pledge Of Allegiance Discriminatory

Atheist Family Sues Schools, Calling Pledge Of Allegiance Discriminatory

By Hannan Adely, The Record (Hackensack, N.J.)

HACKENSACK, N.J. — A Monmouth County family is suing a New Jersey school district, alleging that the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance is discriminatory because it asks students to pledge “under God.”

The family, represented by the American Humanist Association, claims that the daily pledge discriminates against atheists and violates the right to equal protection under the state constitution. The association works to make sure atheists are treated equally in society. The lawsuit was filed in state Superior Court against the Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District and its superintendent, David M. Healy.

Public schools in New Jersey are required under state statute to have students salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance on each school day. The plaintiffs, parents of a minor who goes to school in the district, said that as atheists they do not accept the existence of a God or gods. They argue that the “under God” part of the pledge maligns their religious beliefs and calls their patriotism into question.

The “under God” language also fuels prejudice against atheists by casting them as outsiders and creating an “official public atmosphere of disapproval” of their religious views, said the plaintiffs, who filed the lawsuit anonymously.

Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the Washington D.C.-based American Humanist Association, said public schools should not engage in an activity that tells students patriotism is tied to belief in God.

“The current pledge practice marginalizes atheist and humanist kids as something less than ideal patriots, merely because they don’t believe the nation is under God,” Speckhardt said.

David B. Rubin, a lawyer for the Matawan-Aberdeen district, said the district is following state law that requires the pledge to be said daily. The federal courts have upheld the constitutionality of the pledge in schools, he added, as long as students who object are not required to participate.

“We are disappointed that this national organization has targeted Matawan-Aberdeen for merely obeying the law as it stands,” Rubin said in a written statement.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 and the words “under God” were added in 1954, partly because of concerns about communism. There have been other unsuccessful federal and state lawsuits that challenged the words “under God” in the pledge.

The American Humanist Association is also awaiting a decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that challenges the phrasing of the pledge in public schools in that state.

Photo by Donkey Hotey/Flickr