Alaska Supreme Court reverses stun gun case [Cop stuns 11-year-old girl, can be sued]

Juneau Empire ^ | July 23, 2011 - 11:42pm | By Becky Bohre

[DeaconBenjamin]

JUNEAU — The Alaska Supreme Court on Friday reversed a judge’s finding that a Kotzebue police officer who used a stun gun on an 11-year-old should get immunity in the case brought by her mother.

The justices determined that a lower court had erred both in granting Lee Virg-In qualified immunity and dismissing Sandra Russell’s claims that the city had improperly and negligently trained or supervised Virg-In. The matter was sent back to a trial court.

Russell’s attorney welcomed the news, and an attorney for the city, Joe Evans, said he is prepared for trial. Evans said Virg-In is no longer employed by the city and is working as a teacher in North Pole.

The case dates to 2003, when, according to court papers, a then-11-year-old girl, identified as J.N., ran stop signs with an ATV, drove recklessly and ignored warnings — the use of overhead lights and a police car siren — to stop. At one point, the ATV stalled and the girl and her young passenger began running from Virg-In. J.N. ignored calls to stop but said she stopped “right away” when she ran into a group of teenagers on the street.

It was then, according to court papers, that she said she turned and saw the officer and he pulled out and twice used a stun gun on her. Virg-In described J.N. in an incident report as standing five feet tall, weighing 100 pounds and having a slender build.

She was arrested and later adjudicated for a misdemeanor of “failure to stop at the direction of a peace officer in the second degree.” In 2005, her mother, Russell, sued, alleging Virg-In used excessive force.

According to Friday’s ruling, a lower court found “triable issues” as to the reasonableness of Virg-In’s actions but ultimately determined there was no clear law that would have alerted him to the fact his actions were unlawful. The superior court found that in light of J.N.’s prior efforts to escape and her “reckless behavior,” it was “not so egregious or lacking in common sense” that he would have known it was excessive.

Justice Dana Fabe, writing for the high court, said issues such as whether J.N. was fully compliant and not fighting must be resolved at trial before a determination can be made on whether Virg-In’s actions were egregious or he’s entitled to qualified immunity.

The court also set aside an order that Russell be liable for about $43,000 in legal fees. In state court, winning parties can seek up to 20 percent of their attorney fees in cases where money is not at issue.

[freedumb2003]

So now non-lethal stopping techniques are subject to 2nd guessing.

Yeah she is 11, but she was out of control. The cops should have gone to her parents’ house and ‘tazed THEM!

Soon, no one will want to be a cop. I don’t support cops like the cop that told the legal CCW guy that said cop should have killed the poor dude. That is wrong and on camera.

But this is a case where the cop made a decision in the moment and the kid’s crappy parents should be grateful she isn’t dead.

[MrEdd]

From the evidence presented, I side with the cops. I think she would have ran more.

[east1234]

Hmmmm a 5’ tall 11 year old calls for tazing? Hell the cop should have just gunned her down as dangerous to society as she was! And then maybe he should have to her parents house and handed out some “justice”. Or maybe he should just be fired. Good thing there wasn’t a dog nearby because it sure as hell would have been shot 10-12 times.

[freedumb2003]

>Hmmmm a 5’ tall 11 year old calls for tazing? Hell the cop should have just gunned her down as dangerous to society as she was! <<

Thus you completely misconstrue my post. Tazing is the alternative to lethal force. It should ALWAYS go like this: “comply or be tazed.” Whether the perp is 11 or 91, they have a choice. Tazing isn’t gunning down — it is about officer safety.

Little brat goes nuts (and yes, I think her parents should be tazed) and pays the price and learns a life lesson.

The cops abate a problem, the brat get what she deserves, no one is permanently harmed, brat goes to jail. Parents get charged (I hope). It is win-win-win.

[AlmaKing]

I see violence against children is tolerated here on Free Republic. You give enemies good evidence that Free Republic is in favor of what the nutcase in Norway just did.

[freedumb2003]

>>I see violence against children is tolerated here on Free Republic. You give enemies good evidence that Free Republic is in favor of what the nutcase in Norway just did.<<

And I see your ability to use hyperbole is exceeded only by your analytical density.

You not only don’t bother to read the original situation, you mis-analyze the proper police response, don’t understand why it was proper, and then somehow link it to a killer of 90+ people?

Go to hell. Now.