Post by WaTcHeR on Feb 2, 2007 19:21:27 GMT -5
02.02.2007 - PRINCETON — Two sides of a civil suit that divided Princeton Police Department squared off in circuit court this week.
Almost a year after the charges were filed, Ofc. Mary Beth Gergely, Sgt. Brian Keith Ruble and Lt. Keith Compton went to court in a suit filed against their department and the city.
While the plaintiffs alleged years of wrongdoing, brutality, cover-ups and codes of silence, the defense argued the case was really the result of a power struggle over who got to be chief.
The plaintiffs’ attorney, Janet Williamson said the case was about principle — her clients’ desire to serve as professional officers, in a productive environment. She argued that past and current leadership had allowed wrongdoing to continue, placing other officers and the public in danger.
From the defendants point of view, represented in court by City Manager Wayne Shumate and Police Chief W.L. “Bill” Harman, defense attorney Eric Collins said it looked like the case was all about money and control.
He said the suit was filed to push former chief Casey Martin out of his office, opening the door for Compton to assume the position. When that didn’t happen, Collins said the case turned into an attempt to get money from the city in the form of court-awarded damages.
Either way, officers said the action had taken its toll on the police force.
When Williamson asked Lt. P.W. Hill on the stand whether the work environment had been difficult for the plaintiffs since the case came to light, he said, “I’m sure it’s very stressful for them. It’s stressful for all of us.”
Even before the trial began, the Princeton Police Department was five officers short, facing difficulty in locating and recruiting qualified patrolmen.
Harman has emphasized recently, however, that all the officers on the force have stepped up their efforts to provide security for the city.
The suit
When Gergely, Ruble and Compton filed the suit in March 2006, they alleged a series offenses against the city, the police department and Martin. The three officers accused the plaintiffs of attempting to cover up allegations of wrongdoing, intentional infliction of emotional harm, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent supervision and more.
As the case wore on, specific charges against Martin were dismissed, along with some of the counts facing the city and the police department.
Gergely alone alleged sexual discrimination.
In her opening arguments, plaintiffs’ attorney William-son introduced the theory that the plaintiffs were punished within the force because they broke an unwritten code of silence, a culture and understanding that ensured officers would not “snitch” on each other.
Williamson argued her clients had spoken out because they believed, “Officers should serve as professionals, not as bullies or thugs with badges.”
Williamson said her clients were ostracized, as other officers discovered “there were rats in the department.”
In addition to the allegations of excessive force, Williamson also said her clients were disturbed by the cluttered condition of the PPD evidence room and reports that some officers were allowed to go two years without updating their firearms certification.
“By coming forward, Mary Beth, Brian Keith and Keith have risked everything for the safety and security of our community,” she said.
In return, Williamson said her clients would seek “substantial rewards” from the defendants.
An issue of force
Testimony early in the trial focused primarily on allegations of excessive force. No criminal charges were ever filed against the officers. Two of the alleged victims indicated this week they might pursue civil suits in the future.
The first witness was Danny Lee Potter, who was involved in a police pursuit started by Mercer County Sheriff’s Dep. D.A. Furches Jan. 23, 2006. Potter allegedly fled from officers in the Athens Road vicinity, onto U.S. 460, before stopping in the former Lowe’s parking lot in Green Valley.
According to defense counsel Eric Collins, the chase covered 11 miles at speeds in excess of 80 mph.
Potter said a problem with the driver’s door prohibited him from opening the door. As officers continued to insist he open his door, he said an officer broke the window before he allegedly moved across to the passenger side.
Potter testified that he was in the custody of Hill when Ofc. G.C. Paitsel slid across the hood of his truck, “kind of clotheslined me to the ground,” and assaulted him.
Potter said his injuries “lasted a few days, just like any bruises or swelling.”
Under cross-examination by Collins, Potter said he later pleaded guilty to assault on an officer and fleeing from an officer with injury. Furches was reportedly struck on the leg when Potter initially fled.
Potter acknowledged that he could understand why officers may have believed he was refusing to leave the truck, but that he did not believe they had to use force.
Jerry Johnson later testified on an April 16, 2005 police chase that ended near Twelvemile Road.
Johnson said he attempted to elude a Princeton Police officer on Stafford Drive, because he was already on probation and knew he would likely be arrested if he stopped. He testified he thought he might as well drive his truck home, saving his wife a tow-truck fee to get it back to the house.
He testified he planned to go home and submit to an arrest there, but Johnson drove past his house before abandoning the vehicle, jumping a guardrail and descending a dark hillside at about 1 a.m.
Johnson testified that he knew an officer was chasing him on foot but that he suddenly blacked out as he ran.
“When I came to, I was in handcuffs and being led up the hill,” Johnson said.
He was bleeding from a wound on the back of the head, one Johnson said he got when an officer hit him with something hard.
Johnson said he learned the officer who led him up the hill, and the one he believed hit him, was Paitsel.
“I know I got hit. I know I didn’t fall,” he said.
Defense counsel Mary Beth Chapman asked Johnson if he heard the officer tell him to stop running or show his hands.
“I never heard him if he did,” Johnson said.
Led by Chapman, Johnson also outlined a series of previous offenses, including two DUI charges, worthless check convictions and a deadly weapon charge.
Police protocol
The two altercations, along with others allegedly involving Paitsel and then-PPD Sgt. W.E. Rose, were among the alleged wrongdoing the plaintiffs reported in the case. According to William-son, they repeatedly told supervisors about their concerns of police brutality.
Police training expert Sam Faulkner testified, however, that simply telling a supervisor that something happened would not be enough.
Faulkner, who trains police instructors at an academy in Ohio, testified that any police complaint must be in writing in order to keep the details accurate and provide supervisors with necessary information.
He said he tells officers, “You’ve got to put us in your footprints when you’re out there.”
Asked to define a “thin blue line,” Faulkner said he knew of three different meanings.
He said he had heard it used as the line of defense a police force gives its community, the line between order and chaos.
Second, he said “thin blue line” had been used to describe the protection other officers provide, the assuarance that another officer “will always be there to protect you.”
And, third, he said he had heard the term used to describe what Williamson dubbed the code of silence, the knowledge that “we’re going to protect an officer no matter what they do.”
Faulkner said he had never experienced the third instance.
“As an officer, if you’re doing something wrong, we’re going to let you know about it,” he said.
Under cross-examination, Williamson provided Faulk-ner with an Aug. 13, 2005 memo by Ruble, outlining what he called the PPD’s failure to “instill the integrity or professionalism that is demanded of [officers] as a sworn police professional.”
In it, Ruble referred to officers openly discussing department issues in public and his belief that some officers thought they were “untouchable.”
Williamson asked if that was formal enough to begin an investigation.
“There’s nothing about excessive force,” Faulkner said.
Faulkner again explained that every complaint and incident, in his opinion, should be included on any report of alleged wrongdoing.
“If you tell me ‘excessive force,’ I’m going to say to you, ‘I want it in writing,’” he said.
The investigation
In January 2006, Gergely submitted a formal complaint, detailing the alleged incidents of excessive force, falsified records and more. Later that month, Martin reportedly advised Det. Sgt. C.N. Poe to begin an investigation.
At that time, Poe testified Martin told him there was not enough evidence to investigate Rose, but he completed an investigation of Paitsel.
When he spoke with Paitsel, Poe said the officer advised him he had hit Johnson in the head with a flashlight because he could not see the subject’s hands.
Poe also investigated the other incidents, finding that the officer had likely used excessive force.
Poe testified that he delivered his completed investigation report to Martin in February 2006.
Martin recommended a 30-day suspension per incident, Poe said.
Paitsel later appealed that discipline and eventually reached a settlement with the city for a shorter suspension time.
By the time the case went to court, all of the officers included in the plaintiffs’ reports had left the department and were working for other agencies. Martin retired in May.
Ruble testified Thursday afternoon. Other plaintiffs were set to take the stand today.
www.bdtonline.com/princeton/local_story_033103237.html?keyword=topstory
Almost a year after the charges were filed, Ofc. Mary Beth Gergely, Sgt. Brian Keith Ruble and Lt. Keith Compton went to court in a suit filed against their department and the city.
While the plaintiffs alleged years of wrongdoing, brutality, cover-ups and codes of silence, the defense argued the case was really the result of a power struggle over who got to be chief.
The plaintiffs’ attorney, Janet Williamson said the case was about principle — her clients’ desire to serve as professional officers, in a productive environment. She argued that past and current leadership had allowed wrongdoing to continue, placing other officers and the public in danger.
From the defendants point of view, represented in court by City Manager Wayne Shumate and Police Chief W.L. “Bill” Harman, defense attorney Eric Collins said it looked like the case was all about money and control.
He said the suit was filed to push former chief Casey Martin out of his office, opening the door for Compton to assume the position. When that didn’t happen, Collins said the case turned into an attempt to get money from the city in the form of court-awarded damages.
Either way, officers said the action had taken its toll on the police force.
When Williamson asked Lt. P.W. Hill on the stand whether the work environment had been difficult for the plaintiffs since the case came to light, he said, “I’m sure it’s very stressful for them. It’s stressful for all of us.”
Even before the trial began, the Princeton Police Department was five officers short, facing difficulty in locating and recruiting qualified patrolmen.
Harman has emphasized recently, however, that all the officers on the force have stepped up their efforts to provide security for the city.
The suit
When Gergely, Ruble and Compton filed the suit in March 2006, they alleged a series offenses against the city, the police department and Martin. The three officers accused the plaintiffs of attempting to cover up allegations of wrongdoing, intentional infliction of emotional harm, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent supervision and more.
As the case wore on, specific charges against Martin were dismissed, along with some of the counts facing the city and the police department.
Gergely alone alleged sexual discrimination.
In her opening arguments, plaintiffs’ attorney William-son introduced the theory that the plaintiffs were punished within the force because they broke an unwritten code of silence, a culture and understanding that ensured officers would not “snitch” on each other.
Williamson argued her clients had spoken out because they believed, “Officers should serve as professionals, not as bullies or thugs with badges.”
Williamson said her clients were ostracized, as other officers discovered “there were rats in the department.”
In addition to the allegations of excessive force, Williamson also said her clients were disturbed by the cluttered condition of the PPD evidence room and reports that some officers were allowed to go two years without updating their firearms certification.
“By coming forward, Mary Beth, Brian Keith and Keith have risked everything for the safety and security of our community,” she said.
In return, Williamson said her clients would seek “substantial rewards” from the defendants.
An issue of force
Testimony early in the trial focused primarily on allegations of excessive force. No criminal charges were ever filed against the officers. Two of the alleged victims indicated this week they might pursue civil suits in the future.
The first witness was Danny Lee Potter, who was involved in a police pursuit started by Mercer County Sheriff’s Dep. D.A. Furches Jan. 23, 2006. Potter allegedly fled from officers in the Athens Road vicinity, onto U.S. 460, before stopping in the former Lowe’s parking lot in Green Valley.
According to defense counsel Eric Collins, the chase covered 11 miles at speeds in excess of 80 mph.
Potter said a problem with the driver’s door prohibited him from opening the door. As officers continued to insist he open his door, he said an officer broke the window before he allegedly moved across to the passenger side.
Potter testified that he was in the custody of Hill when Ofc. G.C. Paitsel slid across the hood of his truck, “kind of clotheslined me to the ground,” and assaulted him.
Potter said his injuries “lasted a few days, just like any bruises or swelling.”
Under cross-examination by Collins, Potter said he later pleaded guilty to assault on an officer and fleeing from an officer with injury. Furches was reportedly struck on the leg when Potter initially fled.
Potter acknowledged that he could understand why officers may have believed he was refusing to leave the truck, but that he did not believe they had to use force.
Jerry Johnson later testified on an April 16, 2005 police chase that ended near Twelvemile Road.
Johnson said he attempted to elude a Princeton Police officer on Stafford Drive, because he was already on probation and knew he would likely be arrested if he stopped. He testified he thought he might as well drive his truck home, saving his wife a tow-truck fee to get it back to the house.
He testified he planned to go home and submit to an arrest there, but Johnson drove past his house before abandoning the vehicle, jumping a guardrail and descending a dark hillside at about 1 a.m.
Johnson testified that he knew an officer was chasing him on foot but that he suddenly blacked out as he ran.
“When I came to, I was in handcuffs and being led up the hill,” Johnson said.
He was bleeding from a wound on the back of the head, one Johnson said he got when an officer hit him with something hard.
Johnson said he learned the officer who led him up the hill, and the one he believed hit him, was Paitsel.
“I know I got hit. I know I didn’t fall,” he said.
Defense counsel Mary Beth Chapman asked Johnson if he heard the officer tell him to stop running or show his hands.
“I never heard him if he did,” Johnson said.
Led by Chapman, Johnson also outlined a series of previous offenses, including two DUI charges, worthless check convictions and a deadly weapon charge.
Police protocol
The two altercations, along with others allegedly involving Paitsel and then-PPD Sgt. W.E. Rose, were among the alleged wrongdoing the plaintiffs reported in the case. According to William-son, they repeatedly told supervisors about their concerns of police brutality.
Police training expert Sam Faulkner testified, however, that simply telling a supervisor that something happened would not be enough.
Faulkner, who trains police instructors at an academy in Ohio, testified that any police complaint must be in writing in order to keep the details accurate and provide supervisors with necessary information.
He said he tells officers, “You’ve got to put us in your footprints when you’re out there.”
Asked to define a “thin blue line,” Faulkner said he knew of three different meanings.
He said he had heard it used as the line of defense a police force gives its community, the line between order and chaos.
Second, he said “thin blue line” had been used to describe the protection other officers provide, the assuarance that another officer “will always be there to protect you.”
And, third, he said he had heard the term used to describe what Williamson dubbed the code of silence, the knowledge that “we’re going to protect an officer no matter what they do.”
Faulkner said he had never experienced the third instance.
“As an officer, if you’re doing something wrong, we’re going to let you know about it,” he said.
Under cross-examination, Williamson provided Faulk-ner with an Aug. 13, 2005 memo by Ruble, outlining what he called the PPD’s failure to “instill the integrity or professionalism that is demanded of [officers] as a sworn police professional.”
In it, Ruble referred to officers openly discussing department issues in public and his belief that some officers thought they were “untouchable.”
Williamson asked if that was formal enough to begin an investigation.
“There’s nothing about excessive force,” Faulkner said.
Faulkner again explained that every complaint and incident, in his opinion, should be included on any report of alleged wrongdoing.
“If you tell me ‘excessive force,’ I’m going to say to you, ‘I want it in writing,’” he said.
The investigation
In January 2006, Gergely submitted a formal complaint, detailing the alleged incidents of excessive force, falsified records and more. Later that month, Martin reportedly advised Det. Sgt. C.N. Poe to begin an investigation.
At that time, Poe testified Martin told him there was not enough evidence to investigate Rose, but he completed an investigation of Paitsel.
When he spoke with Paitsel, Poe said the officer advised him he had hit Johnson in the head with a flashlight because he could not see the subject’s hands.
Poe also investigated the other incidents, finding that the officer had likely used excessive force.
Poe testified that he delivered his completed investigation report to Martin in February 2006.
Martin recommended a 30-day suspension per incident, Poe said.
Paitsel later appealed that discipline and eventually reached a settlement with the city for a shorter suspension time.
By the time the case went to court, all of the officers included in the plaintiffs’ reports had left the department and were working for other agencies. Martin retired in May.
Ruble testified Thursday afternoon. Other plaintiffs were set to take the stand today.
www.bdtonline.com/princeton/local_story_033103237.html?keyword=topstory