Skip to content

Archives for false-arrest

See all posts in the network tagged with false-arrest

Spokane Lieutenant Reaches $2.4 Million Settlement with State Police

A Spokane, Washington fire lieutenant who was falsely accused of child pornography offenses, has reached a $2.4 million settlement with the Washington State Patrol.

The case made headlines in 2008 when state police investigators connected the downloading of child pornography to Nichole Chism’s credit card. Assuming a woman would not be involved in child pornography, police arrested her husband, Lieutenant Todd Chism, and executed a search warrant for his home and computers.

Unbeknownst to the police, Nichole’s credit card had been stolen and her identify used by the actual perpetrators. The arrest left Lt. Chism publically humiliated and ridiculed, suspended from work, and alienated from those who knew him.

Chism’s attorney, Bob Dunn, said “The real travesty of what they did is they invented a bunch of stuff in the search warrants that pornography was actually purchased. … When the WSP decided to arrest Todd … (they) assumed the male would be the one who would purchase the porn even if it was in Nicole’s name. Based on what the WSP did, that purchase on a bank card statement is enough to implicate you of a felony.”

While state police initially denied any wrongdoing, they have since openly acknowledged that mistakes were made during the course of the investigation. Nevertheless, they vigorously defended themselves in court when Chism sued for $10 million. In fact, the settlement was only on the table following a ruling last year by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, that the false statements made by investigators constituted “intentional and reckless conduct” that violated Chism’s civil rights.

Regarding the settlement, Chism told reporters “My opinion is they defrauded the taxpayers of $2.4 million because they knew in the first week that they had made a huge mistake. Rather than doing the right thing, they chose to do everything they could to not take responsibility.”

The settlement is unrelated to a second $10 million lawsuit Chism filed against the state police following an altercation outside his home in 2010. Despite being tasered 7 times and badly beaten, he was charged with felony assault. Chism was found not guilty by a Stevens County jury last year. More on that story.

More on the settlement.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted in Civil Suit, Constitutional Rights, Criminal Law, Disciplinary Action, Municipal Liability, Police-Fire, Politics, Sexual misconduct, Wrongful Arrest

Tagged , , ,

1 comment Posted by on June 3, 2012

Connecticut Man Sues Over Transport to Hospital

A Connecticut man has filed a lawsuit over being forced against his will to be transported to a hospital to be evaluated for a possible heart attack.

Arthur Schofield, 53, contends that he was forcibly removed from his home in South Windsor by police and EMS personnel because they believed he was having a heart attack. The incident began on December 23, 2010, when Schofield went to his doctor’s office in Manchester complaining of “an ache he was feeling in his lung”.

Concerned about a possible heart attack the doctor called an ambulance, but Schofield declined treatment and left the office upset that an ambulance had been called. The ambulance crew notified the Manchester Police Department and an officer responded. Because Schofield has left the scene to go home, the officer requested South Windsor Police to meet the subject at his house. Both police departments and the ambulance from the Manchester Fire Department responded.

Once at Schofield’s house, the situation deteriorated. Schofield had been drinking and police officers  forcibly restrained him. He was then transported to Manchester Memorial Hospital where he was evaluated against his will in the ER. He was discharged once it was confirmed he was not having a heart attack. A blood test put his blood alcohol level at .01. To add insult to injury, he later received a $3,100 bill from the hospital and a $590 bill for the ambulance transport.

The suit was filed March 14, 2012 in Superior Court in Hartford. The suit names a long list of defendants (34 in all), including the Manchester Police Department, South Windsor Police Department, Manchester Fire Department, Manchester Memorial Hospital and Ambulance Service of Manchester, Manchester Fire Chief Robert Bycholski, the individual police officers, the ER doctor, and several of the ER technicians.

Schofield’s suit alleges a number of Constitutional violations under 42 USC 1983 (4th Amendment, 14th Amendment due process, equal protection,  right to privacy), state due process violations, assault,  battery, intentional infliction of severe emotional distress, invasion of privacy, negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, abuse of process, false imprisonment, and kidnapping. Besides seeking damages from the various organizations, Schofield is suing each of the named individuals personally.

Here is a copy of the complaint. Claim 2012-16 Schoefield

When I read through it I was a bit taken aback by the way it was drafted, including a “Case Snapshot” section, and how casual/imprecise some of the language was. For example, at one point the complaint states “The Plaintiff was alright with the doctor’s suggestion”… that is not how attorneys normally phrase allegations in their legal pleadings… at least not here in the Northeast. Yet it was clearly drafted by an attorney – I cannot imagine any possible count was omitted.

Upon reaching the last page on the complaint, the reason for my concern was evident: the complaint was drafted by a California attorney… which leads to another question. Why is a California attorney filing suit for a Connecticut plaintiff in Connecticut? Who exactly is going to appear in court for all those pesky motions…

Be that as it may, I would expect the response from the defense to be strong and direct, seeking to promptly remove the case to Federal court in an effort to quickly resolve those Federal Constitutional questions. It is part of the trench warfare that has become quite common in litigation these days. Federal courts stick to a much tighter schedule and are considerably less tolerant of poorly prepared cases than state court. It will no doubt increase the costs of the suit to both sides – which will probably impact the Plaintiff a lot more than the defendants… Remember… trench warfare.

One final point – in addition to seeking monetary damages, the complaint seeks a court order requiring that all police officers in Manchester and South Windsor receive mandatory annual training on when they can lawfully take someone into custody to be examined by a doctor.

More on the story.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted in Civil Suit, Constitutional Rights, Duty to Act, EMS, Municipal Liability, Negligence, You Can't Make This Stuff Up

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

15 comments Posted by on March 17, 2012

Velarde Fire Chief Takes Aim At Sheriff and EMA Director

The strange case of the New Mexico fire chief who was arrested at an incident scene as a way to relieve him of command, is in the news again - this time with an entirely new twist.

Fire Chief Eddie Velarde, of the Velarde Fire Department, was arrested by Rio Arriba County Sheriff’s Lieutenant Adam Archuleta on March 29, 2011 and charged with disorderly conduct. At the time Chief Velarde was the incident commander at a 3.2 acre interface fire that damaged 3 structures and 3 vehicles.

According to the headlines at the time of the arrest, Archuleta claimed Chief Velarde was out of control and his arrest was done in the interests of public safety. Archuleta later charged Chief Velarde with concealing his identity and obstructing a sheriff’s officer. The allegations made national news and caused considerable embarrassment, humiliation, and stress for Chief Velarde personally and the Velarde Fire Department.

Chief Velarde and his attorney, Diego Zamora, vehemently contested the criminal charges. At his trial last July, Chief Velarde was acquitted of all three charges. According to Zamora, under cross examination Archuleta was at a loss to explain how someone he had known for over a decade could attempt to “conceal his identity” – the basis for 2 of the 3 charges.

Also at issue in the case is the role played by county EMA director Mateo DeVargas, with whom Chief Velarde has had past run-ins. DeVargas was assigned to coordinate evacuation of the fire area, establish perimeter control, and track arriving resources. Chief Velarde claims that following his arrest, he heard Archuleta state “Mateo, you got what you wanted, you are now incident commander.”

The case entered an entirely new phase this week when Zamora and co-counsel Patrick Brito filed a civil suit against Archuleta, DeVargus and Rio Arriba County alleging false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious abuse of process, defamation, and conspiracy. The allegations, if proven, are a serious indictment of law enforcement in Rio Arriba County.

The suit was filed on Wednesday. Here is a copy of the complaint: Complaint-VELARDE

It is a good read. The case raises a number of important concerns – not the least of which are the ICS implications of subordinate law enforcement authorities arresting an IC because they question his actions. For news on the story.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted in Civil Suit, Criminal Law, Municipal Liability, Police-Fire, Politics, Volunteers, Wrongful Arrest, You Can't Make This Stuff Up

Tagged , , , , , ,

3 comments Posted by on January 13, 2012