Posted: 10/15/2007 8:57:50 PM EDT
|
Supreme Court Ruling Could Make Officers Individually Liable Updated: October 15th, 2007 01:27 PM EDT DANIEL TEPFER Connecticut Post Online (Bridgeport, Connecticut) BRIDGEPORT -- The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to dismiss a lawsuit against two city police officers by a man imprisoned for a gas station robbery he didn't commit. The nation's highest court has let stand a lower court's ruling that a trial should decide whether Officer Jeremy DePietro and Detective Christopher Borona violated Christopher Russo's constitutional rights when they arrested him for the 2002 holdup even though a surveillance videotape of the crime apparently showed Russo was not the robber. Russo's lawyer, Burton Weinstein, said the Supreme Court's ruling may have national significance because it would make every police officer individually liable for not pursuing evidence that could prove an arrestee's innocence. He said Russo plans to pursue damages against the officers in federal court. The city attorneys were not available this morning for comment on the ruling. According to court documents, on Aug. 1, 2002, an Amoco gas station was held up by a lone gunman. DePietro obtained the station's surveillance tape and after using a video-photo machine to isolate still images of the robber, he prepared a selection of photos of men with similar appearance, including Russo. The gas station employee on duty at the time of the heist picked Russo's photo as the man who had robbed him. Russo was subsequently arrested for first-degree robbery. He was held for seven months until the charges against him were dismissed by a Superior Court judge. Russo has prominent tattoos on his forearms, hands, neck and legs that were noted in the arresting officer's report. However, the robber captured on the gas station's videotape was free of tattoos. Russo subsequently sued the police officers for violating his constitutional rights in U.S. District Court. A federal judge later threw out the suit, but last February that decision was overturned by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals which reinstated the lawsuit. "If a jury credits Russo's evidence regarding DePietro's and Borona's conduct, and if it finds that the videotape provided adequate verification of Russo's innocence based on his unique physical characteristics, then Russo will have established that he was unreasonably seized by DePietro and Barona, in violation of this Fourth Amendment rights," the appeals court ruled. The city then appealed the appeal court's decision to the Supreme Court, which late last week let the appeals decision stand. So why isnt the gas station employee who fingered the wrong guy being sued? |
|
Hopefully the maroon arguing the case will bring in examples of the fake sleeve tattoos that are avaiable at any Spencer's gifts, along with a "blank" set that would cover any, along with a healthy supply of makeup. Some of the shit being argued before our high court should be kicked to the curb. 
|
Victim: Thats the man that robbed me! Cops: Sorry, we cant arrest him. His tattoos are not visable in your grainy black and white video. Yep, thats power to the people. |
|
|
If the guy had prominent tatoos which made him easily identifiable and the video clearly showed a man with bare skin on those same places, he should not have been arrested. To me, that would be like arresting some black guy after viewing the video that shows the perp was white, or vice versa. |
If the victim identified him, that sounds like enough reasonable cause for a search warrant to gather further evidence. But thats not what they did. They arrested and charged him on a single, eye-witness account. Even though they had video evidence contradicting the eyewitness. |
Victim: That's the man that robbed me! Cops: Sorry, we cant arrest him. His skin color was not visible in your grainy black and white video. Yep, thats power to the people. Hey, it still sounds stupid. |
You're analogy is completely flawed. Its not that the video didn't corroborate the eyewitness. The man is arguing that the video positively CONTRADICTED the eyewitness. In the current case, the man argued that several unique, identifying features of his were not present on the man in the video. Not that they couldn't be seen, but that they weren't there and they if they had been, they would have been visible, based on the quality of the video and the portions of the man's body it recorded. |
1Andy2 I agree with you. I was referring to AR15fan post. It was his analogy reworked. I agree, it is flawed. Police are the same as other civilians. We need to take away police "special rights." |
Which "Special Rights" would you be referring to? |
|
Yet more proof that eyewitnesses are one of the least reliable forms of evidence. Kind of makes you think about the number of people in jail convicted solely on eyewitness testimony. I consider myself to be quite tough on crime, but after taking a wrongful convictions class in college, sometimes my cynicism gets the best of me. |
Doesn't surprise me in the least. Just about every day you read about DNA proving the innocents of someone who has been in prison for many years. Vulcan94 |
It's very similar to the Duke lacrosse rape case. Nifong had clear evidence that the accused students were not rapists (since their DNA was not found in the stripper's rectum or panties, although several other men's semen/DNA was present), but willfully "ignored" it. |
This is laughable but the PROSECUTOR is supposed to be the seeker of truth. What a fucking sick joke that is. 5sub |
The thought process being if he/she is not guilty of this one they are guilty of another one so send them to prison. 5sub |
|
I don't know about the cops, but I have always thought that a prosecutor who goes after someone who they KNOW is innocent (or, have EVERY reason to believe is innocent) should serve the sentence they tried to impose on the innocent person. The cops arrest people. They make mistakes all the time. The fact that the prosecutor did not drop this for SEVEN MONTHS is what ticks me off. Prosecutors are lawyers, they are supposed to know the law. Cops don't have to know the law. |
Very good point.... it should be noted that porsecutor's have immunity from damages in many locales ...... |