imported post
As I am not a lawyer, but a Private Investigator/Security Guard, I did have to learn the state and federal laws governing arrest and handcuffing.
If you will look closely, he is suing the Police officers individually as Plaintiffs "John Doe 1-5", the City Manager by name, and the Chief of Police by name.
And as I read the wording, he is suing "in excess of $150,000.00" on each complaint
As for suing for monetary damages, if it comes out of the City and Police department, then they are in a budget crisis and you had better believe that there will be major efforts to remedy this issue.
After listening to the video (audio), it seems to me that the city is going to have to answer for the wrong information that the officers stated and then for their attitude about violating his civil rights. This is an egregious breech of civil rights based on their ignorance of the law. And ignorance of the law is not a defense.
I do agree that the lawyer's use of the first amendment statement could be distracting, but it supports the violation of civil rights, which is one of the mainstays of the suit.
I sure hope someone has sent a link to this video to the Ohio Attorney General. The officer's statement probably won't go over very well in the AG's office.
As for the talking you did, I disagree that you "talked too much" in this case. You probably did have to notify them that they were being recorded. (I loved their statements about that!) Then, trying to get them to tell you why they were detaining you was a good move. It shows that either the law in Ohio needs to be more specific about LEO/OC contacts, or the blatent disregard by the officers of state law. And their statements concerning why they were detaining you only holds water if that area is a "hotbed" of gun use. This might be something to bring up with your lawyer. Did they have a reasonable belief that you might be a bad guy due to other criminal activity in that neighborhood. It will come down to a litmus test of whether the officers had a reasonable belief of whether or not you were a bad guy and whether their or the public's safety was endangered.
After having been involved in a couple of legal matters, I would like to bringa couple of issues to your attention that I found in the past:
1. Your lawyer needs to anticipate the respondents areas of attack/defense
2. The handcuffing is a non-issue, the "get on the ground" is probably going to be a non-issue - both of these are covered under "officer safety" - Levin v City of New York and Martin v Swift
3. The pat down and search are also probably non-issues - Terry v Ohio and Chemel v California
4. Your civil rights were violated when the officers didn't know the law, not that they stopped you, handcuffed you and searched you (hence the wording of the charges).
5. I do believe the assault and battery did occur when they demonstrated that they didn't know the law and proceeded "under the color of law" to verbally assault you and I believe they battered you also "under the color of law"
I think you will be lucky if you get anything out of this at all. You were not arrested. Has there been a show-cause hearing? You probably won't get past that.
Good luck and I hope this does go further.
If you don't know if someone is a criminal than you have no right to even ask them to stop walking. The only reason you can stop someone is if you have REASONABLE SUSPICION a criminal act is CURRENTLY UNDERWAY. The OC of a firearm is a LAWFUL act and therefor CAN NOT be reasonable suspicion of a CRIMINAL ACT.:banghead: