I have friends on the force who admitted to taking drugs in high school and they were still hired. They had to pass a polygraph before hired. Could this be something like that. I would think they would put whatever they could in the suit to build it up.

 

That's what it sounds like. Sounds like they accessed everything in his records with Boone Co. This could be any number of things but it's a bad look on the families part IMO. Trying to tarnish the Deputies reputation to get some money back. If it's not about the money then I'm sure it will all go straight into a scholarship fund in the deceased girls name.

The prior illegal drug use allegation doesn't concern me too much. Often times that is marijuana or some experimentation in college. Not a deal breaker in my opinion as long as you are completely honest about it and pass the polygraph test.

 

However, the illegal sales of prescriptions drugs allegation really has me wondering. There is a big difference between being a "drug dealer" and maybe selling some of of your adderall prescription while you are in college. I am certainly not condoning anything here just pointing out there is a wide range of possibilities and they are not all created equal.

 

Now, the making false statements on the job application is probably a deal-breaker (for me) if this allegation is true.

 

The job application thing, if it was intentionally done then sure. However I've seen people not get hired for something similar that was a clerical error on the application, even though they passed the Polygraph. It just seems like the attorney is really trying to build these allegations up and they may involve a lot of misleading information.

That's what it sounds like. Sounds like they accessed everything in his records with Boone Co. This could be any number of things but it's a bad look on the families part IMO. Trying to tarnish the Deputies reputation to get some money back. If it's not about the money then I'm sure it will all go straight into a scholarship fund in the deceased girls name.

 

Plaintiff has a lot of things that they need to prove. Casting doubt on the character of the Deputy will help move a jury for sure goes a long way in proving his actions were either willful or grossly negligent.

Although I disagree with the premise, legally speaking I think the attorney does have a point.

 

This kind of thing drives law enforcement officers crazy.

 

In short, Brockman is going to have to specifically articulate his legal basis for the stop and there probably isn't one other than if he didn't stop the vehicle and something else bad happened down the road he would get sued for that too.

 

It's basically a no win situation for any law enforcement officer.

 

Terry stop?

The job application thing, if it was intentionally done then sure. However I've seen people not get hired for something similar that was a clerical error on the application, even though they passed the Polygraph. It just seems like the attorney is really trying to build these allegations up and they may involve a lot of misleading information.

 

Which is why it is imperative that the Sheriff's Department respond to the shocking allegations.

Terry stop?

 

You tell me, from Wikipedia:

 

In the United States, a "Terry stop" is a brief detention of a person by police[1] on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest.

 

To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must be able to point to “specific and articulable facts” that would indicate to a reasonable person that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed.[5] Reasonable suspicion depends on the “totality of the circumstances”,[6] and can result from a combination of facts, each of which is by itself innocuous.[7]

You tell me, from Wikipedia:

 

In the United States, a "Terry stop" is a brief detention of a person by police[1] on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest.

 

To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must be able to point to “specific and articulable facts” that would indicate to a reasonable person that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed.[5] Reasonable suspicion depends on the “totality of the circumstances”,[6] and can result from a combination of facts, each of which is by itself innocuous.[7]

 

 

Well I think you already know my answer. That would be where I would start as far as a legal stand point. The totality of the circumstances in a fluid situation can often justify an officers reasoning for stopping someone, not every time but often. Everything after that initial contact was a direct response to the deceased persons actions And has nothing to do with the initial reason for the stop.

Well I think you already know my answer. That would be where I would start as far as a legal stand point. The totality of the circumstances in a fluid situation can often justify an officers reasoning for stopping someone, not every time but often. Everything after that initial contact was a direct response to the deceased persons actions And has nothing to do with the initial reason for the stop.

 

Correct

 

And even though the Deputy was on shaky legal ground to start, the deceased still has to stop (by law) and not doing so is an offense.

 

I am sure this is twisted logic to many of you but the deceased not stopping greatly undermines the lawsuits contention that the officer didn't have a legal right to stop her.

 

And for any lay people out there, even if a police officer is wrong, you still have to stop your vehicle for them. If you prove they are wrong later you can collect your money but what you can't do is ignore any police officers instruction to stop, if you don't stop for them you are wrong every time.

 

In summary, the Deputy may not have had a legal reason to stop the deceased but the deceased DEFINITELY had a legal obligation to stop at the officers request. In other words, maybe the Deputy was wrong, but the deceased was definitely wrong.

Correct

 

And even though the Deputy was on shaky legal ground to start, the deceased still has to stop (by law) and not doing so is an offense.

 

I am sure this is twisted logic to many of you but the deceased not stopping greatly undermines the lawsuits contention that the officer didn't have a legal right to stop her.

 

And for any lay people out there, even if a police officer is wrong, you still have to stop your vehicle for them. If you prove they are wrong later you can collect your money but what you can't do is ignore any police officers instruction to stop, if you don't stop for them you are wrong every time.

 

In summary, the Deputy may not have had a legal reason to stop the deceased but the deceased DEFINITELY had a legal obligation to stop at the officers request. In other words, maybe the Deputy was wrong, but the deceased was definitely wrong.

 

I'm telling you guys, he had every reason to stop the drivers coming from that party. He briefly stopped the driver before and asked if he was drinking. Driver said no and was on his way. He would have done the same here, and if he suspected her of drinking while operating a motor vehicle, he had probable cause to detain her and conduct a field sobriety test. The 1983 Civil Rights argument is a stretch and, I believe, meant to get this into Federal Court.

 

The real issue is whether he threw himself on the car unreasonably. That is where the whole crux of this thing will be won or lost. Better believe that that anxiety medication dosage will come into play. It plays into the Why of ending up on the car.

I'm telling you guys, he had every reason to stop the drivers coming from that party. He briefly stopped the driver before and asked if he was drinking. Driver said no and was on his way. He would have done the same here, and if he suspected her of drinking while operating a motor vehicle, he had probable cause to detain her and conduct a field sobriety test. The 1983 Civil Rights argument is a stretch and, I believe, meant to get this into Federal Court.

 

The real issue is whether he threw himself on the car unreasonably. That is where the whole crux of this thing will be won or lost. Better believe that that anxiety medication dosage will come into play. It plays into the Why of ending up on the car.

 

By all means, give everyone the specific legal basis for the stop?

 

I am telling you, it is gray at best.

I'm telling you guys, he had every reason to stop the drivers coming from that party. He briefly stopped the driver before and asked if he was drinking. Driver said no and was on his way. He would have done the same here, and if he suspected her of drinking while operating a motor vehicle, he had probable cause to detain her and conduct a field sobriety test. The 1983 Civil Rights argument is a stretch and, I believe, meant to get this into Federal Court.

 

The real issue is whether he threw himself on the car unreasonably. That is where the whole crux of this thing will be won or lost. Better believe that that anxiety medication dosage will come into play. It plays into the Why of ending up on the car.

 

Just another reason I'm not a fan of taking medications(not that there's anything wrong with taking a prescribed medication). It's just crazy how far medications reach can go in effecting someone's life.

I also want to say it one more time, right or wrong I would have stopped the vehicle too. I don't fault the Deputy at all for attempting to stop the vehicle.

 

Like I said everyone, the law is deficient in cases like this.

By all means, give everyone the specific legal basis for the stop?

 

I am telling you, it is gray at best.

Without access to case law, here is my legal argument. Flawed and incomplete so take it with a grain of salt.

Under Terry, temporary detentions are permitted where there is merely a REASONABLE SUSPICION that a crime has occured or is about to occur. An assortment of crimes happened at this party namely trespassing and under-aged drinking. As the people left the party, there was a reasonable suspicion that some of the drivers would be intoxicated as there had been drugs and alcohol there, obviously resulting in driving while intoxicated. Since, again, the suspicion was reasonable he had a right to stop the car.

 

The 1983 argument against the officer, in order to recover punitives, requires the plaintiff to show that the Deputy was motivated by an evil motive or intent, or that it involved reckless or callous indiference to the federally protected rights of others.

 

That isn't as much of a stretch as I originally said, when it comes to the action of shooting and ultimately killing her. If he jumped on that hood for no reason other than to play super cop and put himself in a position of life or death, or if he didn't give her a chance to stop the car after reacting to the shock of having someone jump on her hood, then he could be found guilty of involved reckless or callous indifference. I don't believe that he jumped on that hood and shot out of some preformed evil motive.

 

This is why the case hinges on why he ended up on that hood. Jump and you have a 1983 action and wrongful death. If he was forced on the hood, then you have a guy basically fighting for his well being.

 

As for the case against the city and 1983, I'll let other people write about that.

 

Here is a paper covering 1983 actions in the state of Kentucky http://gmfm-law.com/wp-content/themes/gmfm/pdfs/1983_claims_and_defenses.pdf

 

This doesn't

http://www.kenwallentine.com/downloads/Current%20Legal%20Issues%20inTraffic%20and%20Investigatory%20Stops.pdf

 

Here is a document regarding Traffic and Investigatory traffic stops with citations.

It is from 2009, so some of this may be outdated.

I also want to say it one more time, right or wrong I would have stopped the vehicle too. I don't fault the Deputy at all for attempting to stop the vehicle.

 

Like I said everyone, the law is deficient in cases like this.

 

I think he's covered under Terry v. Ohio.

 

The name derives from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968),[2] in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that police may briefly detain a person whom they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity;

 

Based on the facts he had at the time, I think he had enough to check drivers leaving that party. He knew there was underage drinking going on there based on the people walking down the road, drunk. That alone gives him enough reasonable suspicion to investigate it further. Like mex said, he was only briefly detaining people who he did not believe was DUI. He didn't ask the first driver for any identification, just checked him and sent him on his way.