Police use of excessive force violates civil rights

THE use of unreasonable or excessive force by police are in the news now more than ever.  Many thought after the Rodney King incident, this issue will never arise again. But several recent police encounters have become high profile because of the tragic endings to civilians – some became permanently injured, others lost their lives.
What are the remedies for victims of police misconduct?
The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees a person’s right to be free from unreasonable use of excessive force by law enforcement officers. Cases decided under a Fourth Amendment claim affirm this guarantee. The police owes a duty to use reasonable care in deciding to use and in fact in using deadly force. The “reasonableness” standard simply asks: Are the officers’ actions “objectively reasonable” in light of the circumstances confronting them?
A police officer, therefore, may use deadly force only if he has a reasonable belief there is an immediate risk that the person being detained will cause death or serious bodily harm. However, an officer who uses excessive force in making a lawful arrest or detention commits a battery. Consider the following case:
On January 2, 2013 Esa Wroth was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI). While he was being booked, and while his hands were handcuffed behind him, correctional officers claimed Wroth “resisted” and “acted aggressively” by lunging or grabbing the hand of a deputy. Meanwhile, Wroth alleged that the deputies knocked Wroth’s head against a concrete wall, and threw his body to the concrete floor. While Wroth was lying on the ground with his hands still cuffed behind his back, officers then punched and kicked him. They then wrenched Wroth’s arms out of their sockets, and kneed him in the face, while he continued to lay face down and handcuffed. Wroth also claimed being tasered more than 20 times while he was lying on the floor with his hands cuffed behind his back.
Wroth was knocked unconscious, suffered dislocated shoulders, several puncture wounds, and burns from the Tasers, facial bruising, lacerations, swellings, and permanent nerve damage to his hands. Wroth retained burn and puncture scars from the multiple Taser probes. He incurred significant medical expenses and claimed that he will continue to need medical treatments in the future.
Wroth sued the County of Sonoma, the Sheriff of the City of Sonoma and the five correctional officers claiming that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated due to the intentional and unreasonable use of excessive force by the officers.
The City of Sonoma and the officers claimed that because of Wroth’s resistance, the deputies had to use a leg sweep to place him on the floor. The five officers claimed they had difficulty controlling Wroth, who was handcuffed and lying down on the floor, such that they had to tase him 23 times, kick his head, put their knees to his face, and then wrench out his shoulders.  A video of the incident was shown to the court.
The County of Sonoma, the governmental entity which hired, trained, and supervised its officers, may be held civilly liable for the wrongful conduct of these officers. Rather than continue with the litigation, the County of Sonoma agreed to pay $1.25 million to Wroth to settle his claims.

* * *

The Law Offices of C. Joe Sayas, Jr. welcomes inquiries about this topic. All inquiries are confidential and at no-cost. You can contact the office at (818) 291-0088 or visit www.joesayaslaw.com. 

* * *

C. Joe Sayas, Jr., Esq. is an experienced trial attorney who has successfully recovered wages and other monetary relief for thousands of employees and consumers. He is named Top Labor & Employment Attorney in California by the Daily Journal, consistently selected as Super Lawyer by the Los Angeles Magazine, and is a member of the Million Dollar-Advocates Forum.

The Filipino-American Community Newspaper. Your News. Your Community. Your Journal. Since 1991.

Copyright © 1991-2023 Asian Journal Media Group.
All Rights Reserved.