Monthly Archives: September 2022

The defendant accused two officers of slamming him face-first into pavement, injuring his face, without telling him he was under arrest.

FORT WORTH, Texas Two Fort Worth police officers are being sued on multiple counts after their accuser stated they violated his Fourth Amendment rights, violently slamming him to the ground face-first causing multiple injuries.

The plaintiff, Cesar Salinas, is suing Fort Worth officers Steve Loud and Teresa Torres. The charges against the two officers include using excessive and unreasonable force, a Fourth Amendment violation, when they slammed Salinas into the ground when he was not resisting them, and had not been told if he was being detained or for what reason.

Officers first made contact with Salinas the night of Sept. 20, 2020, while they were investigating a complaint from a woman that she was groped by an unknown Hispanic man outside a bar, the suit details.

The suit states the woman never identified Salinas as the person who grabbed her and the charges were later dismissed.

At no point during the altercation did officers tell Salinas he was under arrest or being detained, the suit details. After handing police his ID card and calling his friend over the phone, Salinas was walked over to a police car without being told why.

From there, Salinas told officers he would stand there and wait. After asking Loud why he needed to walk to the car, the suit adds, Loud told him he would explain why when they got there, but he still had not been told why police were talking with him.

While talking on the phone with his friend, Torres reportedly told him "I'm taking over" and tried to grab Salinas' phone without warning or explanation. Body cam footage shows Salinas' arm being pulled back and the phone being pulled from his ear by Torres.

Without giving Salinas any further commands or just asking him to hand over the phone, Torres swung Salinas to his right and then slammed him into the ground face-first against the pavement, causing him to bleed heavily.

Salinas was slammed so hard that his hat flew off and a green pocket knife, closed, flew out of his pocked onto the ground, which Torres later falsely reported seeing in his hand even though it had been in his pocket the whole time. Body cam footage shows Salinas had been holding only his cell phone and a pink e-cigarette before being slammed to the ground.

Salinas suffered multiple injuries from being slammed on the ground, including a cut on his lip, a contusion to his left cheek, a knot above his left eyebrow and swelling on his head, the lawsuit stated.

The plaintiff, Salinas, is asking for punitive damages due to the officers violating his Constitutional rights

"Plaintiff is entitled to recover all actual damages allowed by law. Plaintiff contends said Defendants conduct constitutes malice, evil intent, or reckless or callous indifference to Plaintiffs legally protected rights. Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against Defendant Torres and Defendant Loud."

Originally posted here:
Fort Worth officers sued after being accused of violating rights - WFAA.com

NPR reported in August that a Cleveland State University student won a lawsuit after suing his college for asking him to take a video of his surroundings before an online proctored exam.

He said he felt his Fourth Amendment rights protecting U.S. citizens against "unreasonable searches and seizures were violated, according to the article.

As conversation sparked around the country, LSU professors and students weighed in on their thoughts about online proctoring.

David OBrien, director of Testing and Evaluation Services at LSU, said this court ruling could possibly put students at more of a disadvantage than professors as physically monitoring tests can be more expensive and time-consuming than remotely monitoring a test.

If the ruling in Cleveland began to make a bigger impact throughout the nation, making universities no longer allowed to offer online, proctored tests, the availability and cost of online learning could be affected.

OBrien said there is always a balance between providing a secure testing environment and an invasion of privacy for students. He said room scans are enforced to help ensure room security for the student testing in the room.

There would need to be an alternative in cases where the student is unwilling to have the room scanned, OBrien said.

Another way to proctor tests, OBrien said, is the LSU Testing Center, a secure testing location where students could be tested online and monitored in person.

He suggested that universities like LSU should provide testing rooms in libraries or quiet areas. A student could take their online proctored test in this room and deal with no privacy issues.

He also said the ruling could affect the potential for students to cheat on exams, as they might still take the tests online, and they would no longer be proctored.

OBrien said cheating on exams could create an unfair academic environment, lowering the value of grades received and degrees earned. He said it gives no more value to cheat your way to a degree than to simply print out a degree on a piece of paper.

Students who cheat are in fact cheating themselves and their fellow students of the quality of the degree they earn, OBrien said.

Charles Cloutier, operations coordinator of the Department of World Languages, Literatures and Cultures at LSU, said he agrees with the judge's ruling that individuals have a right to privacy in their own homes. He said that the proctoring company had gone too far in storing data in that students room.

I find it very unreasonable for students to have to show their entire room for a single test, Cloutier said.

Cloutier suggested that the best solution for proctoring online exams is being proctored by another person over Zoom. The student would share their screen with the proctor, and the proctor could assess whether the student was using unapproved materials during the exam as well as look for signs of cheating and dishonesty.

He also said that in the future, students and professors could think about completing exams via virtual reality. The student would be unable to use their notes with a headset covering their eyes.

I believe with VR, higher education would be able to control the test-taking environment to a higher degree, Cloutier said.

In terms of cheating, Cloutier said that although the inability to control the testing environment could lead to individuals cheating on exams, students will always find a way to cheat.

We really should not be policing students, but rather trying to instill a sense of integrity in them, Cloutier said.

Stacia Haynie, a political science professor at LSU, said she believes colleges will adapt just like they did during the COVID-19 pandemic. She said universities could require students to still utilize software at local libraries if they were uncomfortable in their own homes.

She also said universities could require students to agree to online monitoring when they schedule the course.

If you are aware of the requirement, you are waiving the expectation of privacy, Haynie said.

In terms of cheating, Haynie said professors learn strategies to limit it, and students learn strategies to increase it.

Biochemistry freshman Antonio Zavala said that while he agrees with the court ruling, he understands this was during the COVID-19 pandemic, a time when testing in person was not always feasible. The student had no say in whether he tested at home or in a monitored area.

Zavala said that the court ruling over this matter puts students and the education system in a sticky situation as students might start having less of an option to test outside of campus.

It can be assumed that a larger amount of students will cheat until a superior method of proctoring is discovered, Zavala said.

Zavala said that he hopes software with advanced face recognition systems could be the key to preventing students from cheating while also abiding by the Fourth Amendment. He said that regardless, he believes the education system will find ways to adapt.

Continued here:
LSU professors, students weigh in on constitutionality of room scans for online exams - The Reveille, LSU's student newspaper

Could constitutional rights be a contributing factor in Americas ideological divisions?

Thats the argument made by Jamal Greene, author of How Rights Went Wrong: Why Our Obsession With Rights Is Tearing America Apart. Courts have reduced complex discussions about rights into zero-sum conflicts where a constitutional right overrides all other interests, writes the Columbia Law School professor and former clerk for Justice John Paul Stevens.

Courts have reduced complex discussions about constitutional rights into zero-sum conflicts, says Professor Jamal Greene. He and other constitutional scholars worked on a project that demonstrated people who disagree on a lot can still cooperate on updating Americas founding document.

More recently, he has been involved inthe Constitution Drafting Project. Organized by the National Constitution Center, the venture grouped constitutional scholars into ideological teams liberal, libertarian, and conservative and tasked them with drafting their ideal constitutions.

Of the project, Professor Greene says, the biggest take-home from the process is that quite a number of people across ideology actually can agree that there are aspects of the Constitution that are in need of revision, and about which revisions would be useful and helpful. He adds, It was an object lesson in negotiation, that people from different starting points can get together around something if theyre willing to be open-minded and engage with the arguments and objections made by others.

Could constitutional rights be a contributing factor in Americas ideological divisions?

Thats the argument made by Jamal Greene, author of How Rights Went Wrong: Why Our Obsession With Rights Is Tearing America Apart. Courts have reduced complex discussions about rights into zero-sum conflicts where a constitutional right overrides all other interests, writes the Columbia Law School professor and former clerk for Justice John Paul Stevens.

More recently, he has been involved inthe Constitution Drafting Project. Organized by the National Constitution Center, the venture grouped constitutional scholars into ideological teams and tasked them with drafting their ideal constitutions.

Courts have reduced complex discussions about constitutional rights into zero-sum conflicts, says Professor Jamal Greene. He and other constitutional scholars worked on a project that demonstrated people who disagree on a lot can still cooperate on updating Americas founding document.

Professor Greene spoke with the Monitor about the project, as well as how America can move beyond the current climate of despair and divisiveness toward cooperation. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Could you explain what the Constitution Drafting Project is and why you wanted to be a part of it?

So this is an initiative of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia that is trying to bring together people who come from different ideological orientations, to see if they can come up with some sensible revisions to the Constitution. The way it was structured was to set up three teams, each with a different ideological orientation a progressive team, a libertarian team, and a conservative team [Professor Greene was part of the progressive team] have them work independently to draft their own constitutions, and then see where they agree and where they disagree. That was kind of the first phase of the project. And I dont know if this was intended from the start, or whether it arose out of the first phase, but the next phase was to have the teams get together and see if they can actually hammer out language in relation to the provisions or the potential amendments that they actually agree about. So thats what weve done. There was a kind of mock constitutional convention in which we got together via Zoom and tried to work out actual constitutional language that all three of these teams could actually agree on.

What have you learned throughout that process?

I think the biggest take-home from the process is that quite a number of people across ideology actually can agree that there are aspects of the Constitution that are in need of revision, and about which revisions would be useful and helpful. We actually agreed on five amendments, some of which would be significant. There was disagreement about the language and exactly around the margins, and people had to make compromises. But it was an object lesson in negotiation, that people from different starting points can get together around something if theyre willing to be open-minded and engage with the arguments and objections made by others.

Can you give more details on that? What were you able to agree on?

One [amendment] would remove the limitation on a president to be a natural-born citizen. Everyone agreed that naturalized citizens should be able to be president, at least if they have lived in the country for a certain length of time. There was a second amendment relating to and this gets a little bit inside baseball, but its quite important whats called a legislative veto, which enables the legislature to override an agency regulation without necessarily getting the approval of the president. A third amendment had to do with impeachment. We all agreed to lower the threshold for Senate conviction, but raise the threshold for House impeachment, so that they would both be three-fifths. [Under] the current Constitution the House can impeach with a simple majority, and the Senate requires two-thirds to convict, so we made both of those numbers three-fifths.

Jason Berger/Courtesy of Harper Collins

Jamal Greene is a professor at Columbia Law School and author of How Rights Went Wrong." He participated in the Constitution Drafting Project, which brought together scholars with different ideologies to propose revisions to the U.S. Constitution. Professor Greene says, "it was an object lesson in negotiation, that people from different starting points can get together around something if theyre willing to be open-minded and engage with the arguments and objections made by others."

A fourth amendment basically imposes 18-year term limits on the Supreme Court, and [a] regularized appointment process so that there are two justices appointed for every presidential term. And then a final amendment that would change Article 5 itself, and change the actual amendment procedure in the Constitution. Right now it requires a two-thirds vote of both houses and three-quarters of the state legislatures. We changed that to a three-fifths vote in both houses and two-thirds of the states and also an additional possibility of either two-thirds of the states, or states representing three-quarters of the population.

Why did you want to be part of this, and devote time to this? What do you think is the broader significance?

Well, I really do think that the Constitution, which is a very old document [it] was written for a very different society than what we have today is in need of significant revision. And I also think that if we are going to revise the document, it needs to be in a way that takes into account the views and commitments of a broad range of people. And its also important to show that its possible for people who have different views and attitudes and commitments to compromise, to negotiate, and not just yell at each other on social media or cable news. I think this is a good kind of object lesson in how one can actually come to agreement on things that we all can believe in, even if we start from different points. The country could use more examples of people coming to engage in what I think of as genuine politics, which are figuring out how to move forward even though you come from different starting places.

You talk about the current state of our politics. Is that related to our Constitution, and in particular how its interpreted right now?

They are related in the sense that one of the basic premises of the book is that we are a very pluralistic, diverse people, and the only way for a pluralistic, diverse people to move forward together as a single society is if they dont understand themselves to have absolute entitlements against each other that conflict with each other, that they really do need to engage in political conversation. Im trying to live that by getting together with people I disagree [with] about lots of things. Thats no reason not to try to come together around the things that we can agree on, and also, again, to compromise.

In reality our Constitution is famously difficult to change. You write about how the problem of the 21st century is the problem of the rights line. Can you give an example of rights conflicting, and what thats meant for our politics and our country?

There are lots of examples of it. Abortion rights is a clear example, where there are entrenched sides, both of which understand themselves to be vindicating constitutional rights. Gun rights [and] affirmative action also in a lot of ways take these forms. Lots of conflicts over freedom of speech, between the freedom of the listener or the freedom of the speaker. And we tend to view those conflicts as if the job of the legal decision-maker is to choose one of those rights or the other when they come into conflict, as opposed to trying to mediate between them. And thats a big part of what the book is about, is some strategies for mediating between rights.

As to how realistic the project is, as an academic, one engages in lots of projects that dont have an immediate payoff, so in some ways this seems more realistic than some of the things that academics typically do. But Im not so sure that theres no practical possibility. It is incredibly difficult to amend the Constitution, but we also have a kind of despair about constitutional amendment, as if theres just nothing we could possibly agree to. And this project shows that thats not true. There are things that people could possibly agree to, and just developing some momentum toward that end I think is a productive thing to do.

What do you see as the stakes? The momentum that we have right now, that youre trying to change, where do you see that heading? Why do you think we need a correction?

I think among the stakes is self-government itself. Governing oneself according to a 200-plus-year-old document that we cant change means that we, in fact, are not governing ourselves. And so invigorating the idea that we actually have some agency in trying to decide what constitutional rules apply to our society is as important as anything in constitutional law. Im just one person, but it seems to me that among the things that a single person can do to try to get at that problem, showing that it actually can be done, and then actually going out and doing it and trying to defend it, is among the more productive things one can do in the face of very steep odds. Whether we think of the Constitution as something that we have any power to change, it is the very stakes of self-governance, and I take those very seriously.

Read this article:
Solution for ideological division: Revising the Constitution? - The Christian Science Monitor

By Callie Ferguson, Bangor Daily News StaffA former teen who was incarcerated at two Maine youth prisons has sued the Maine Department of Corrections, claiming staff repeatedly used excessive force against him and placed him in solitary confinement for behavior related to his disabilities.He also claims a female guard sexually assaulted him over months in her custody when he was still a minor, but the department failed to properly investigate the abuse when he came forward after his release.

By Callie Ferguson, Bangor Daily News Staff

A former teen who was incarcerated at two Maine youth prisons has sued the Maine Department of Corrections, claiming staff repeatedly used excessive force against him and placed him in solitary confinement for behavior related to his disabilities.

He also claims a female guard sexually assaulted him over months in her custody when he was still a minor, but the department failed to properly investigate the abuse when he came forward after his release.

The alleged events took place between 2012 and 2017 while Alexander Mascal, now 24, was imprisoned at the now-shuttered Mountain View Correctional Facility in Charleston and, later, Long Creek Youth Development Center in South Portland, according to a federal lawsuit filed Tuesday.

Mascal alleged that his treatment by staff violated his Eighth and Fourth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, as well as his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint names multiple Department of Corrections officials and guards, known as juvenile program workers, as defendants.

The allegations are not the first of their kind to be leveled against Maines juvenile justice system, which has long faced criticism for failing to meet the complicated needs of kids in its care and doing further harm instead.

Mascals experience illustrates how the state failed its obligations to him under the juvenile code, which, unlike the adult system, is supposed to be rehabilitative in nature, his lawyers argued. Instead, he encountered repeated forms of violence and abuse.

From the moment the doors of Mountain View closed behind him, Alexander found himself trapped in a veritable black box, defenseless to abuse and neglect at the hands of facility staff, his lawyers, Thomas Hallett and Grainne Dunne, wrote in the complaint. When he cried out for help, the system worked in concert to further criminalize him, ensuring he would spend the remainder of his childhood and much of his young adult life behind bars.

A spokesperson for the Maine Department of Corrections did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Mascal spent time incarcerated at Mountain View and Long Creek until April 2016, following a difficult and unstable home life. By the time he was locked up at age 14, Mascal had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiance disorder, a mood disorder and had a history of psychiatric hospitalizations.

His mental health struggles caused him to act out behind bars, he wrote. But instead of treating his symptoms, staff placed him in isolation in the prisons special management unit, causing stress that made it harder to control his behavior and his mental health to deteriorate further, according to his complaint. Maine has rules about when, and for how long, kids in custody can be placed in isolation, and they are not allowed to be isolated as a form of punishment. Mascal alleges that he was subjected to isolation against those rules, and often as a form of punishment.

Staff also responded to his behavior with excessive physical force, such as throwing him against walls and to the ground, kicking and punching him, and using a spit mask to cover his face, according to the complaint, which includes photos of an altercation that was caught on camera.

Most commonly, these physical assaults were precipitated by minor infractions or in response to Alexander experiencing mental health symptoms, his complaint states.

Staff should have instead accommodated Mascals known disabilities by enlisting the help of a mental health clinician to appropriately respond to any of Alexanders outburst or self-harming behavior and use de-escalation methods to resolve any direct confrontations, his lawyers wrote.

During his time behind bars, correctional staff referred Mascal for at least 20 additional criminal charges based on his behavior behind bars, often for assaulting guards but not always. In 2014, he threatened to kill himself while confined to an isolation cell and made a noose out of his bed sheet. He was later charged with making a false public report and criminal mischief, the complaint states.

After he was charged for assaulting a guard at Mountain View, Mascal was transferred to Long Creek in the spring of 2014. A few months later, in October, he alleged that then-Juvenile Program Worker Elia Atkinson entered his cell one night and sexually assaulted him. People in custody cannot legally give consent.

The two had 10 more sexual encounters over a 14-month period until Mascal left Long Creek because he was transferred to the Cumberland County Jail, the complaint states. When he was released from jail in February 2017, the two began openly dating. Mascal had just turned 19, and Atkinson was 37, according to the complaint.

Atkinson had left her job at Long Creek by December 2017, when Mascal began to recognize the abusive and coercive nature of their relationship, the complaint states. He contacted his former case worker and reported the sexual relationship had started while he was incarcerated at Long Creek.

When he was interviewed by a prison investigator three weeks later, he also reported that Atkinson allegedly provided him with alcohol and Suboxone, a medication used to treat opioid use disorder.

Mascal claims in his lawsuit that officials failed to properly investigate his complaint and covered up the allegations.

After being interviewed, he did not hear from the investigator, Joseph Fagone, again.

Mascal later requested paperwork from the Department of Corrections related to its investigation and received a one-page document that did not mention Atkinson as the alleged perpetrator but instead named another person Mascal said he had never met, according to the complaint.

Mascal later learned that the Maine Criminal Justice Academy, which oversees the certifications of police and correctional officers, had revoked Atkinsons certification for furnishing alcohol to a minor in 2018. The paperwork did not mention a sexual assault.

More here:
Lawsuit says teen was thrown in solitary confinement and abused inside Maine's youth prisons - observer-me.com

A $6 million federal lawsuit claims that during a traffic stop two Warren County Sheriffs Office deputies used excessive force against a man who died days later.

Ian R. Ennis, the son and administrator of the estate of the late Ralph C. Ennis, filed a civil lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia in August. The plaintiff names Deputies Tyler Poe and Zachary Fadley as defendants.

Attorneys Seth Carroll and Susan Pierce represent the plaintiff and filed the lawsuit on Ennis behalf on Aug. 8.

Attorney Carlene Johnson represents Poe. Alexander Francuzenko represents Fadley. In separate response filings to the lawsuit, Poe and Fadley deny any allegations of misconduct and have asked that the lawsuit be dismissed. Poes attorney filed a memorandum in the court on Friday to further support his clients request to dismiss the case.

Ralph Ennis, 77, died on April 15 in the care of Blue Ridge Hospice, 13 days after sustaining a head injury during an April 2 traffic stop in Warren County. In August, a state medical examiner in Manassas determined that Ralph Ennis died from natural causes. But the plaintiff claims the deputies actions during the traffic stop directly caused his fathers death.

The two-count complaint accuses the deputies of using excessive force in violation of Ralph Ennis Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure.

Defendants unreasonably used excessive force against Mr. Ennis when they effected their arrest by slamming the elderly man face first into his vehicle and then tackling him (to) the ground after he was already restrained, causing a traumatic and ultimately fatal brain injury, the complaint states. No objectively reasonable law enforcement officer would have believed that the elderly and visibly confused Mr. Ennis posed any threat or significant risk of harm to himself or any other person. No objectively reasonable law enforcement officer would believe that the level of force used by the Defendants was necessary to subdue an elderly and visibly confused man during a routine traffic stop.

The second count accuses the deputies of battery leading to Ralph Ennis wrongful death in violation of Virginia law.

At all relevant times, both Defendants had a duty to use only the amount of force necessary in subduing Mr. Ennis, the complaint states. Defendants excessive physical force against Ralph Ennis was utilized without proper verbal warning and was not justified in any way.

The extensive injuries suffered by Mr. Ennis demonstrate the excessive force used to subdue a person who was complying with verbal commands, appeared elderly and confused, and posed no immediate threat to others, the complaint states.

Ralph Ennis traveling southbound on Winchester Road passed Warren County Sheriffs Office Deputy Christopher Pontious, who was running stationary radar, at approximately 1:20 a.m. on April 2, the complaint states. Pontious reported Ennis traveling 63 mph in a 55 mph zone. Pontious also reported Ennis vehicle was swaying from side to side in its lane and had a problem with a tail light.

Pontious pursued Ennis and activated the patrol vehicles blue lights to initiate a routine traffic stop. Ennis slowed his vehicle to around 45 mph but continued traveling south on Winchester Road toward Front Royal without pulling over, the complaint states. Pontious called in on his radio to report that he was trying to stop the vehicle, which had slowed down, but was continuing to travel toward Front Royal. Pontious activated his vehicle siren after Ennis passed several chances to pull over. Ennis then slowed to approximately 35 mph.

The lawsuit cites events recorded by Pontious body camera.

Pontious activated his body camera while following Ennis. Shortly after Pontious activated the siren, Ennis turned his vehicle into the Royal Farms gas station parking lot at 260 Crooked Run Road, through to the 7-Eleven lot and pulled into a parking space. Pontious pulled up behind Ennis vehicle, blocking it in. The deputy turned off the siren but left the blue lights flashing. Pontious exited his vehicle and began commanding for Mr. Ennis to step out of the car, the complaint states.

Ennis started to exit the vehicle in an attempt to comply with Pontious command.

However, (Ennis) had only slightly opened his driver side door when Canine Officer Sergeant (J.) Gregory shouted a conflicting command of Driver stay in the car! Follow our commands! and notified Mr. Ennis of the presence of a canine officer, adding that if you do not follow our commands, you will get bit! the complaint states. At this point, Mr. Ennis started to close his door.

Another officer on the scene then commanded for Mr. Ennis to Get out of the car! and Get your hands up! the complaint goes on to state. At this point Mr. Ennis slowly opened his driver side door. (Pontious) then commanded for Mr. Ennis to step out of the car!

Ennis stepped out of his vehicle appearing visibly confused and disoriented, the complaint states.

Deputy Pontious ordered Mr. Ennis to face away from me, face 7-11, and to turn around! while pointing behind Mr. Ennis, the complaint states.

Ennis, who appeared confused by, or did not hear, the multiple and sometimes conflicting commands, complied and walked toward the rear of his vehicle and Pontious, keys in his right hand, according to the complaint. Pontious then ordered Ennis to drop his keys. The complaint states Ennis turned around to face Pontious and appeared in the video to mouth the word what?

At this time, Defendant Poe quickly rushed Mr. Ennis from behind, and without announcing his presence or giving Mr. Ennis any verbal command, violently grabbed Mr. Ennis and slammed Mr. Ennis face and body into the rear of Mr. Ennis truck, the complaint states. Mr. Ennis screamed out in a panic, Wait a minute! as the force of Defendant Poe violently slamming him into the vehicle caused Mr. Ennis baseball cap to fly off his head.

The Warren County Sheriffs Office issued a media release in late April on the incident that stated that Ennis failed to comply with lawful orders to stop, resulting in a deputy approaching Ennis from behind, and grabbing his arms in an attempt to control Ennis and place him under arrest. The deputy continued to give him commands to stop resisting, drop the keys and place his hand behind his back as Mr. Ennis was escorted several feet away to the rear of his pickup truck, according to the media release.

The complaint states that Pontious body camera footage shows Ennis was visibly confused and attempting to comply with all commands when Defendant Poe gave no verbal command or warning and slammed, not escorted, Mr. Ennis into the rear of his vehicle, causing significant injuries.

As Defendant Poe violently pressed Mr. Ennis against the rear of his vehicle, Defendant Fadley immediately rushed in from the side, and without announcing his presence or giving any verbal command, violently pushed and tackled Mr. Ennis and Defendant Poe to the pavement behind the vehicle, the complaint states. As Mr. Ennis was pushed and tackled towards the pavement, his legs were caught on his vehicles protruding tow hitch as he tumbled sideways with Officer Fadleys entire body weight on top of him.

Defendant Fadley issued his first verbal command Get on the ground! as Mr. Ennis head slams into the pavement, the complaint goes on to state. While Defendants handcuffed Mr. Ennis on the ground, Mr. Ennis can be heard on Deputy Pontious body camera footage frantically pleading for help and crying out in extreme pain.

Front Royal Police Detective Corp. R.D. Lowery arrived at the scene in time to see the defendants encounter with Ralph Ennis, according to the complaint. Lowery, while farther away from Ennis than the defendants, described in his report that Ennis appeared elderly and confused. According to the complaint, Lowery states in his report: (Poe) slammed the male into the camper top face first. I observed the male spit something out on the pavement just below his body. Another Deputy (Fadley) came from the side of the male while (Poe) had his hands behind his back. (Ralph Ennis) was pushed over but his legs caught the hitch on the back of the truck.

The complaint states that, as Lowery left the scene, his body camera footage captured him saying that was fking unjust and fing un-fing called for and Jesus Christ, oh thats going to be before the video cuts out.

Corporal Lowerys subjective impression of the situation clearly demonstrates he believed that there was an excessive use of force against Mr. Ennis, the complaint states.

Deputies handcuffed and then searched Ennis. Emergency medical services workers came to the scene to tend to Ennis injuries. Officers found no weapons on Ennis, the complaint states.

There is no factual basis within the materials to indicate that Mr. Ennis gave any of the officers reason to believe he was armed, the complaint states. Mr. Ennis did not act in a threatening manner in any way.

On the contrary, Mr. Ennis at all times presented as an elderly man who appeared confused and disoriented, but attempting to comply with various commands in a disconcerting environment, the complaint continues. Mr. Ennis was completely sober at the time of the incident and the officer-issued breathalyzer test returned a result of 0.000.

Emergency medical services workers took Ennis to Warren Memorial Hospital for treatment at approximately 2:15 a.m. after he appeared to suffer from significant head trauma.

Hospital staff reported that Ennis appeared confused, could not provide his sons name nor could he recall the altercation, the complaint states.

Staff diagnosed Ennis with a traumatic brain injury caused by the fall, specifically a bleed in his brain known as a subarachnoid hemorrhage in the left parietal and occipital lobes, according to the complaint. EMS workers transferred Ennis to Winchester Medical Center due to the severity of his trauma and he arrived at the hospital at approximately 6:30 a.m. Staff at the Winchester hospital diagnosed Ennis with terminal intracerebral hemorrhage. Ennis health continued to decline at the Winchester hospital and his family decided to change his level of care to comfort or palliative care. Ennis then was transferred to Blue Ridge Hospice on April 14 for end-of-life care.

See the original post:
Lawsuit claims deputies used excessive force | Nvdaily | nvdaily.com - Northern Virginia Daily