Posted on 07/06/2007 11:55:40 AM PDT by radar101
SAN DIEGO ---- A federal jury ruled last week that Vista sheriff's deputies used unreasonable force and unlawfully arrested two teenage brothers in a February 2005 incident at the Vista Village shopping and entertainment center.
Jurors set the total amount of damages suffered by the brothers at $400,000 ---- $200,000 each. The jury ruled, though, that one of the brothers was 25 percent responsible for what happened to him, leaving the total damages awarded at $350,000.
Senior Deputy County Counsel Ricky Sanchez said Thursday that no decision has been made about whether to appeal the case.
DeJoyce "Joy" Johnson, the mother of the two teens, said in a telephone interview Thursday that they were "ecstatic" about the verdict, which she said "vindicated" her sons and restored some of their faith in the judicial system.
"I wanted my boys to see justice can and will prevail if you go about it the right way," Johnson said of her reason for pursuing a lawsuit.
Johnson said that her oldest son, Fred Johnson, now 18, cried when he learned of the verdict and told his mother that the jury believed him, which was important to him.
The Johnsons moved from Vista to North Carolina in November 2005, largely because of the incident that was the basis for the lawsuit, DeJoyce Johnson said.
Documents filed with the court stated that the incident began after 10 p.m. Feb. 25, 2005, as sheriff's Deputies Lisa Jenkins and Maureen Perkins spoke with groups of young people outside the Krikorian movie theater about the city's 11 p.m. curfew and the need for the people in the groups to have transportation home.
DeJoyce Johnson said her sons were outside restaurants near the theater after a movie they saw ended about 10 p.m. The teens were part of a group of five or six black youths, Johnson said.
Johnson said she was at a Bible study that night. When it ended, she called her sons and realized they had been trying to reach her by phone. That is when she learned deputies had detained them, she said.
The Johnson family's attorney, Michael Marrinan, alleged in a trial brief filed last month that deputies appeared to think that Elijah Johnson, then 14, was being a "smart aleck" when he responded to the deputies that he thought the curfew was at midnight. Although he had committed no crime, deputies handcuffed him, searched him and took him to the sheriff's office at the Vista Village center, the Johnsons alleged.
Sanchez alleged in the county's trial brief that Elijah Johnson responded to deputies in a "verbally abusive and hostile manner," denied having identification, and "suddenly reached into his pockets." Deputies grabbed his hand because they did not know if he was armed and escorted him to the nearby sheriff's office to contact his parents because his resistance to the deputies "could have a tendency to incite other minors in the group," Sanchez alleged in the trial brief.
Two deputies later brought Fred Johnson to the sheriff's office as well, and he called his mother at the deputies' request, the trial briefs stated.
Marrinan alleged in the Johnsons' trial brief that deputies then "started to get in Fred's face" and became angry when he refused to tell them what he discussed with his mother. Sanchez alleged that after the phone call, Fred Johnson was "verbally abusive and physically aggressive towards the deputies."
Marrinan alleged that the deputies yanked Fred Johnson out of his chair, forced him down to a counter and took him to the ground. He was "hit, kicked, stomped and beaten by deputies" when he resisted, was hog-tied with a dog leash and eventually was taken to Juvenile Hall, the Johnsons alleged in the trial brief.
Sanchez alleged in the county's trial brief that deputies told Fred Johnson he was going to be arrested for disturbing the peace and obstructing them from managing other juveniles at the Vista Village center. He then struggled with deputies, two of whom were injured as they wrestled him to the ground and handcuffed him, Sanchez alleged.
Elijah Johnson was not prosecuted. Fred Johnson was charged with felonies in Juvenile Court, but a judge there acquitted him, finding that deputies had no justification for detaining either of them, Marrinan wrote in the Johnsons' trial brief. Fred Johnson spent 40 days in Juvenile Hall, his mother said.
The verdict form from the federal civil trial shows that jurors decided that deputies Jenkins and Perkins unlawfully detained and arrested the brothers, interfered with or attempted to interfere with their constitutional rights, and used unreasonable force. The jury, however, decided that the deputies did not commit battery on the brothers and that Fred Johnson was negligent and partially responsible for what happened to him.
Contact staff writer Scott Marshall at (760) 631-6623 or smarshall@nctimes.com.
When this judge did this, he as good as said "Go ahead-Sue the Sheriffs".
I can’t speak exactly to the facts of this case, but I’d like to see more awards for people abused by the justice system.
After Duke, where three blatantly innocent men endured the “rape of name” for a year, it’s time to hit these govt’s in the pocketbook. Law-enforcement immunity is no answer when lives of the innocent are being destroyed.
Yep.
I AM THE LAW!!!
Sorry, had a Judge Dredd moment. Ok now.
Man I wish I had known about this percentage of guilt thing when I was younger.
Sounds like they deserved to be sued.
I thought this was going to be a Microsoft story!
How do you feel about awards for cops abused by people?
I can't speak to the facts of this case either. What effect do you think this decision will have on beat cops?
A friend of mine was shot at by a burglar. The shot killed his K-9 partner. My friend shot back, wounding and permanently disabling the burglar. My friend was sued. What is he going to do the next time he's invited to check a "suspicious circumstance" after dark? Will he be at top efficiency? Will be he providing the protection of property people want the police to provide?
A cop goes into a situation where the only witnesses are friends and associates of the person they detain, takes some action, and is subsequently sued. It's the cop's word (or the cops' word) against the word of people who are NOT likely to be the ones in a pickle if it turns out mama's little darling DOES have a pistol in his pocket and probably are not deeply devoted to observing the laws of the community.
Lawsuits like these, whatever the verdict, ensure that cities and towns have "combat zones" where no one is safe and where the cops won't go.
Your friend should spend more time at the range and perfect the head shot.
Let's not lose sight of whose money they are hiding behind.
I'm guessing the cops were Mexican-American.
The judge and jury were taxpayers ~ and the area in question is hardly a combat zone.
Not allowed. SOP is COM
If a cop made an observation like that, he'd be accused of being racist, no matter what the reason was for the observation.
and the area in question is hardly a combat zone.
I neither said nor implied that it was. What I said was that verdicts like this will ... well you can go back and read it. It may not be a combat zone now. Things change.
Courts almost always take the cop’s side, unless there is fantastic evidence proving the cop is wrong. I base that statement on a couple of trips to traffic court. You can get a ticket for whatever the cop feels like, and all you can do is pay up.
Cases where cops are sued for shooting people are far less frequent.
OW, my EYES!
Good. They deserved to be sued. This is still America and we still have certain rights and freedom from unlawful arrest is one of them.
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.