Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > The Constitution & The Judicial Branch
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

The Constitution & The Judicial Branch Discuss U.S. court will not block lawsuits over Connecticut SWAT raid at the Political Forums; A U.S. federal appeals court has ruled that Connecticut police cannot claim immunity to quash lawsuits seeking millions of dollars ...

Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 08-27-2014, 09:40 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,620
Thanks: 10,112
Thanked 15,311 Times in 9,282 Posts
Post U.S. court will not block lawsuits over Connecticut SWAT raid

A U.S. federal appeals court has ruled that Connecticut police cannot claim immunity to quash lawsuits seeking millions of dollars in damages from a botched 2008 raid by a SWAT team that severely injured a homeowner and killed his friend.

The decision by the U.S. 2nd Court of Appeals in New York clears the way for a judge to decide whether five suburban Connecticut police departments violated the constitutional rights of homeowner Ronald Terebesi by using excessive force.

On May 18, 2008, a heavily armed SWAT - or special weapons and tactics - team unit knocked down Terebesi's door, threw stun flash grenades into his Easton home and fatally shot 33-year-old Gonzalo Guizan of Norfolk as the two men watched television.

Guizan, who was visiting the home, died after being shot a half dozen times.

“The court ruling here is going to be relied upon in other courts throughout the country," Gary Mastronardi, a Bridgeport attorney who represents Terebesi, said on Tuesday. "They set up the parameters that define the extent to which qualified immunity can be asserted by police in SWAT cases."

In a 51-page ruling that upholds a lower court decision, the appeals court said the police responded with unnecessary and inappropriate force and under the circumstances, are not protected by "qualified immunity" from the lawsuits.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that government officials have qualified immunity against civil damages if their conduct does not violate someone's legal or constitutional rights.

“The plaintiffs presented evidence indicating that all of the defendants understood that the warrant was for a small amount of drugs meant only for personal use. The basis for the officersʹ entry, in other words, was related to an offense that was neither grave nor violent,” the appeals court wrote in a decision released late Monday.

The ruling coincides with a rash of cases in which police have been accused of using excessive force. In Ferguson, Missouri, days of sometimes violent protests have followed the death of an unarmed teenager shot by a police officer.

The Connecticut raid involved officers from the Easton, Monroe, Trumbull, Darien and Wilton police departments.

It followed a claim by an exotic dancer that she had seen a small amount of cocaine in Terebesi's home. After the raid, police found only a small quantity of drugs and no guns.

The Easton Police Department declined to comment immediately, and representatives of the other four departments could not be reached on Tuesday.

The towns have claimed their SWAT officers did not use excessive force or violate either man's constitutional rights.

But District Court Judge Janet Bond Arterton ruled in 2012 that the departments are responsible because the SWAT team entered the home with undue force and without enough warning.

Prior to the raid, two police officers expressed concern about using force to execute a search warrant on suspicions of drug possession, court records indicate.

Last February, the towns agreed to pay $3.5 million to Guizan's family to settle their lawsuit.

Terebesi, 50, states in his lawsuit that he was injured when police hit him in the head with a gun. He claims he is suffering from post-traumatic stress as a result of the raid, which he says violated his civil rights.
U.S. court will not block lawsuits over Connecticut SWAT raid

I can see how some raids could qualify for "immunity", but a blanket classification is out of the question.
Of course, the towns and police involved proclaimed that they did nothing wrong.
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post:

block, connecticut, court, lawsuits, not, over, raid, swat, will

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0