The Lafayette Journal & Courier ran a story on the partial victory by the police officer defendants in a suit by a woman who was injured as police fired at a fleeing vehicle operated by the man who had abducted the woman and murdered the woman’s son.
The suit alleged that the police officers violated the woman’s constitutional rights and also that she was injured through their negligence. A federal judge granted the officers’ summary judgment motion on the constitutional claims — which are a federal matter — but declined jurisdiction on the remaining state claims and remanded those back to the state court. I represent the county and the county officers sued and, therefore, was briefly mentioned in the story. The federal judge’s opinion is here (pdf) . Among other things, the judge found:
“Here, the defendants were faced with a dangerous and violent felon, who had just broke into Ms. Browell’s residence and shot her son, and was attempted to resist arrest and flee the scene by driving erratically through the neighborhood[.]” . . .
“Clearly the officers were attempting to apprehend the likely armed Lile, a legitimate governmental interest, and not intending to harm Ms. Browell.”
. . .
Viewing the record in the light most favorable of Mrs. Browell, she simply cannot demonstrate that defendants violated her constitutional rights. To the contrary, the uncontested facts reveal that defendants’ use of force in attempted to subdue Mr. Lile, a fleeing felon who had shot and ultimately killed Ms. Browell’s son and held her unconsciously captive, was reasonable, and no jury could find otherwise.
Leave a Reply