Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Defendant in Civil Rights Case

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • allen_gamble
    replied
    Why on earth would you be publishing the details of your ongoing lawsuit on a public internet forum? Best of luck. I think you will need it.

    Leave a comment:


  • CCCSD
    replied
    Not all of us.

    Leave a comment:


  • retired1995
    replied
    Wow! I wish that all of you folks who know it all had been on staff defending me (and my guys, when I was a chief). Everyone here seems to think that as long as they carry a badge the department (and the moon and the stars and the sun rising in the east) will come to their personal defense, no matter what claims might be made.

    If I had only a couple of bucks per hour for every deposition, every court appearance, and every hour spent responding to court orders for documents/records/training manuals/policies/procedures/toilet paper for lawyers, I could quite easily purchase a new house in a very good neighborhood.

    Wake up call! You can be thrown under the bus quicker than who woulda thunk it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dinosaur32
    replied
    What conspiracy allegation? That would change everything.

    Leave a comment:


  • CCCSD
    replied
    So much more to this than what was posted...

    Leave a comment:


  • Citykid33
    replied
    Originally posted by Dinosaur32 View Post
    If this is a NY case and if Citykid is a NYS LEO, this is a nothing burger. Especially if the only allegation is a that Citykid just called the locals.
    I hope so. The conspiracy allegation is what the court may look to investigate further, which just keeps the legal fee meter running if this case goes to discovery.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dinosaur32
    replied
    If this is a NY case and if Citykid is a NYS LEO, this is a nothing burger. Especially if the only allegation is a that Citykid just called the locals.

    Leave a comment:


  • PeteBroccolo
    replied
    Did I miss the remarks, but are you a member of FOP, or does your Agency have an Association, and one of them assist you with retaining Counsel, or at least get you a deal on a Solicitor?

    Leave a comment:


  • L-1
    replied
    Earlier I commented about agencies being required to represent employees in law suits brought against them for acts performed in their official capacity. I probably should have expanded on what I meant.

    I understand your department's position that you were not acting in your official capacity (and even share it). At the very least, they should have gone to court on your behalf, if only to state you were not acting in your official capacity or within the scope and course of your duties in this matter, and sought dismissal of the lawsuit against you. Had the court agreed, this would have been resolved. Had the court disagreed, your department would then have been obliged to defend you (and indirectly, itself).

    It is important that your department do this, because if you have a crappy defense (or no defense because you can't afford it) and the Plaintiff obtains a judgement against you for a tort the court has decided was committed under the color of official right (even if decided by default) your employer is going to be on the hook for damages created by its employee.

    Your agency was foolish not to provide you (and itself) with this simple and very limited defense.





    Leave a comment:


  • Citykid33
    replied
    Originally posted by tanksoldier View Post

    ...and yet, according to the OP, here we are.

    I think there's more here that we're being told but IF what the OP says is true I don't see how or why his department wouldn't cover him... unless policies, general orders, directives and the like don't apply off duty.
    There’s nothing more to the story. My department made the recommendation to the State Attorney to represent me. The State Attorney looked at it for two days and came back and said no, we can’t cover you because you were not in your official capacity. My union has helped me, but at some point I’m sure it’ll get too expensive for them to continue funding.

    As far as my renter’s insurance they won’t cover me because it went into effect the month after her arrest. That’s when they’re saying that claim started. I could fight it but I don’t have the resources to fight a battle on two fronts here.

    I have engaged an attorney. He’s doing all he can to keep costs down. Wre trying to get it dismissed based on the fact that I’m a private individual. If they don’t dismiss it, it goes to discovery phase. I’m sure that’ll be another $15,000.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dinosaur32
    replied
    The plaintiff must at least allege that the NY officer took some official police action for his agency to be involved. If all she is alleging is the he called the local PD, then her claim is against that agency.

    Leave a comment:


  • tanksoldier
    replied
    Originally posted by Dinosaur32 View Post
    Does not put any liability on the officer or the agency. A directive not to take action when off duty, if obeyed, is not a reason to sue either the officer or his agency. Especially by the defendant.
    ...and yet, according to the OP, here we are.

    I think there's more here that we're being told but IF what the OP says is true I don't see how or why his department wouldn't cover him... unless policies, general orders, directives and the like don't apply off duty.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dinosaur32
    replied
    Does not put any liability on the officer or the agency. A directive not to take action when off duty, if obeyed, is not a reason to sue either the officer or his agency. Especially by the defendant.

    Leave a comment:


  • tanksoldier
    replied
    Originally posted by Dinosaur32 View Post
    In NYS, most agencies self-insure or have a policy that covers the agency and its employees. Here the poster took no official police action and his agency was not involved. No reason for the agency to be involved.
    He was bound by department policy and a directive NOT to take action. He was acting under orders at the time... the order was just not to do anything.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dinosaur32
    replied
    In NYS, most agencies self-insure or have a policy that covers the agency and its employees. Here the poster took no official police action and his agency was not involved. No reason for the agency to be involved.

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 9832 users online. 497 members and 9335 guests.

Most users ever online was 19,482 at 12:44 PM on 09-29-2011.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X