Posted on 12/01/2007 1:04:07 PM PST by Reeses
City attorney 'baffled,' plans to appeal case involving gun that was allegedly planted
A jury in U.S. District Court in San Francisco Friday awarded an East Oakland man $5 million for emotional distress after claiming Oakland police planted a gun on him.
The lawsuit, filed in October 2005, concerns an incident on Sept. 10, 2004, when two Oakland police officers went to the East Oakland home of Torry Smith. Smith was on parole for a felony conviction, and police had just found Smith's ATM card in the back seat of a well-known drug dealer's car.
According to court records, one of the officers witnessed Smith, who was naked at the time, carrying a rifle and trying to hide it under the stairs. Smith was arrested for, among other crimes, felony possession of an assault weapon. Police recovered a Thompson .45 caliber assault weapon from his property. At the time, Smith told officers the gun belonged to his girlfriend's brother.
Later, Smith and his then-girlfriend, Patricia Gray, sued, alleging the officers planted the gun.
Smith was awarded the $5 million plus $8,000 for lost wages — even though he was not employed at the time. The jury also awarded $750,000 for emotional distress to Gray, and found both officers liable for $100,000in punitive damages.
"We're baffled that the jury could make this decision, given the facts of the case," City Attorney John Russo said in a statement. "To reach this decision, the jury had to believe that two highly respected officers, in uniform, in a community where they are well known, in broad daylight, carried a two-and-a-half foot assault rifle from their car and planted it in the backyard of a man they had never even heard of before that day."
Oakland Police Chief Wayne Tucker also was upset by the verdict.
"These are hard-working officers who are well-respected in the community and do not deserve this verdict," Tucker said in a statement. "Both have received numerous commendations for valor, outstanding police work, solving homicides and fighting crime in Oakland."
Russo said the city will appeal and post trial motions will be filed immediately to challenge the verdict.
"We believe the jury got it wrong, and we believe the court was in error on a number of evidentiary rulings," Russo said. "The jury was bedazzled by a trumped up conspiracy theory, but we believe justice will prevail and these officers will be exonerated."
I wonder why the police would plant his girlfriend's brother's rifle on his premises. I wonder where they even collected his girlfriend's brother's rifle.
"These are hard-working officers who are well-respected in the community and do not deserve this verdict," Tucker said in a statement.
The officers didn't receive this verdict. The taxpayers of Oakland did. If the drive-by media ask Tucker what he intends to do with the officers, he need only say, "Nothing. They didn't do it. I guess we will send them back to work."
As a police officer myself, I want to thank you for the common sense post you just made. I just wanted to get that out there before the few police haters on this site put in their two cents.
Actually, I was going to take a different tack.
Although I agree with the sentiment of the statement, the verdict was against the officers. Even if/when exonerated they will have to carry it with them for the rest of their careers.
This stinks and adds to the difficulty to recruiting quality cops.
I’m retired PD myself. This whole thing stinks of the jury making a social statement at the expense of taxpayers.
This here "assault weapon" is probably just a semi-auto Tommy Gun. That is a little surprising, though, since those are not that common, and they don't come cheap.
As one of the so-called “cop haters”, I’d like to say that this whole story stinks out loud. Some criminal scumbag gets awarded $5 million for running around naked with a gun?
But then it’s Oakland.
Pssst...Mr Russo....you're living in SAN FRANCISCO!!!
I have yet to encounter a police officer that was "out to get me".
It's always a story that SOMEHOW some jackbooted-thug is displayed as a "typical police officer", but I've never seen one.
Police-bashing is the politically correct thing to do today, it seems, and with the thousands of folks running around with video cameras, hoping to cash in on catching police wrongdoing (especially in the inner-cities), isn't it amazing how seldom one of wrongdoing actually shows up?
Likewise, with the video equipment in most police cars, so many law-breakers are shown that would make me shoot the bastard on apprehension to avoid a trial before an "OJ Jury" that it's good that I am not in law enforcement.
In my book, you break the law and you take your chances on the outcome when apprehended. This country may in fact be headed toward vigilanteism in the future if we continue to dgrade to the level of "victimhood" Liberals portray as the "plight" of the "poor underclass".
The poor under-class lives off the backs of those who are productive, and deserves NO quarter when they break the law.
Too many lawyers are living comfortable lives by exloiting the legal system and the Liberal bleeding hearts while filling their pockets, and allowing so many repeat offenders to go among us.
Location,location,location. I’ve always thought of Oakland as being nothing more than San Francisco’s back door.
Another OJ Simpson type of verdict from an OJ type of jury.
We need to start giving potential jurists IQ tests before they’re allowed to sit on juries. This racially biased verdict will not stand outside of this court.
I’ve never known you to be a “cop hater,” ozzy. I know you’re not enamored of the type of cops who shoot Fido at the first yap, but then as an ex-cop neither am I.
And stevem, you’re comments were right on.
you’re = your
Perhaps the case was lost because of illogical arguments like this one. Lacking proof that the firearm was ever in the backyard, there would be no reason to presume that a false report regarding the firearm required that it be carried anywhere.
In order to meet a bad cop one has to break the law don’t they ?:o)
I don’t hate cops who solve crimes and help people.
I can not stand cops who participle in pure revenue collection activities like “Click-it-or Ticket”, they are as rotten and scummy as they come, along with cops who don’t write tickets to their fellow officers or their girlfriends, that they would gladly write to a perfect stranger. By treating the public with less respect than they treat their friends and co-workers, they are merely asking the public to treat them with down graded respect. It is the golden rule. Treat others as you would have them treat you.
These cops in this case were out being helpful returning an ATM card and noticed a felon with a gun. I think the taxpayers are getting a raw deal here.
“Police recovered a Thompson .45 caliber assault weapon from his property”
Does every firearm description have to include the scare words “assault weapon”? I’m sick of these news people.
“That is a little surprising, though, since those are not that common, and they don’t come cheap.”
You’ve got your $200 government tax on top of whatever the full-auto costs just to own something you should be able to purchase at the hardware store.
In this case, it appears that the cops were innocent.
However, the police in this country have no one but themselves to blame when people accuse them of planting drugs, weapons, and so forth. If it didn’t happen to people, people wouldn’t believe it happens. If cops want respect, they must police themselves first — and expunge the criminals, bullies, liars, cheats, thugs, thieves, and amateurs from their own ranks.
hard to have any idea what to think, since it is not clear if the gun in fact did belong to the gf’s brother or whatever relation. That would seem to be a key factor which could have been established which this article ignores.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.