You are here

Excessive Force Case Results In Rare Plaintiff Victory In Tribal Court

Submitted by Amaris Elliott-Engel on Tue, 05/20/2014 - 08:30

Here's a version of the article I wrote for the Connecticut Law Tribune about what may be the first plaintiffs' victory in an excessive force case involving a police officer from the Mohegan Tribe or the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation:

When a drunken bar patron gets forcefully subdued by a police officer and wins a five-figure verdict as a result, it's usually not big news. But move a similar confrontation to an American Indian casino, and that’s a different story.

A patron of the Mohegan Sun Casino has prevailed in what may be the first successful excessive force claim against a tribal police officer in Connecticut, according to the plaintiff's attorney who won the case.

Mary Puhlick, Puhlick & Cartier, in Norwich, regularly practices in the courts of both the Mohegan tribe and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation. The recent $92,344 judgment rendered in favor of her client "is the first [successful] tort claim in either tribal court involving use of force by a police officer," Puhlick said in an interview.

Mohegan Gaming Disputes Court Chief Judge Paul Guernsey, in an April 28 opinion, rule that arresting officer Todd Maikshilo was not justified in using a control technique that resulted in serious ligament and bone damage to the plaintiff's leg.

Even after calling plaintiff Jerry D'Ambra Jr.'s behavior "drunken and obnoxious," Guernsey said he was entitled to more than $32,000 in actual damages and $60,000 in non-economic damages. At the time, D'Ambra worked as the equipment manager in his family's construction business and was attending flight school.

D'Ambra, then 20, visited Mohegan Sun with an older friend, Merrick Bolcum, then 49, almost five years ago in order to attend a concert of country singer Eric Church. D'Ambra reached his drunken state by consuming three large rum and Cokes poured into large Dunkin' Donut travel mugs, according to the written opinion.

Later in the evening, D'Ambra threw up in the men's room and security officers took him and his friend to Krispy Kreme at the casino premises for coffee and doughnuts. D'Ambra and Bolcum were both given a Breathalyzer test, and the results revealed they were both unfit to drive. They were both told to wait two hours before heading back home to Rhode Island.

After the plaintiff said he was going to get sick again and needed fresh air, Security Officer Edward Martin walked outside with him. Martin testified that D'Ambra got increasingly belligerent. Martin called for a tribal police officer. Maikshilo was the first officer to arrive.

Maikshilo testified that D'Ambra swore at the two of them, challenged them to Taser him and put both hands behind his back in a dare to the officers to arrest him.

After Maikshilo and another tribal officer arrested D'Ambra, they said the the plaintiff attempted to lunge away. Maikshilo said he needed to bring D'Ambra under control for his own safety, and that he applied his right foot to the rear of D'Ambra's left calf, bringing the man down onto Maikshilo's extended right leg.

"Maikshilo conducted a memorable in-court demonstration of the effectiveness of this maneuver on plaintiff's counsel," the judge commented in his opinion. "His skill in performing it was impressive."

D'Ambra offered contradictory testimony. He said he encountered Maikshilo on his way out of the casino, and that he ignored the officer's request to go to the men's room. He acknowledged the Taser challenge, but denied trying to run away from the officers. He said he leaned over, put his hands on his knees, got whacked on his knee from behind and fell forward with his face landing on the mulch. "'That's when I got loud, after I was on the ground and handcuffed,"' D'Ambra testified.

If D'Ambra's account is correct, Guernsey said, it is unsurprising that there was no surveillance video of the incident because it would have taken place off to the side of one of the casino's valet entrances. The officers testified that the incident took place closer to the front of the valet entrance, making "the lack of video surveillance puzzling," Guernsey said.

There was probable cause to arrest D'Ambra for breaching the peace, the judge said. But the question was if there was probable cause for the officer to use the control maneuver to take him down.

The judge found D'Ambra's testimony persuasive in finding the controlling maneuver — called a rear sentry takedown — constituted excessive force by the officer. Guernsey also credited the testimony of defense expert Reginald Allard, who taught, for 23 years, the rear sentry takedown and other methods of control at the Connecticut State Police Academy.

Allard testified that he has never had an injury result from recruits practicing rear sentry takedowns. "Hundreds, thousands of times that I've applied it, had it applied to me, to the recruits, we've never had an injury based on the strike itself causing injury to the recruit," the defense expert testified.

The result of Maikshilo's maneuver was a torn anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and a fractured tibia. The plaintiff needed surgery in July 2009 to remove a loose piece of bone almost two inches in length.

The Mohegan Torts Code provides the tribe and its officials with immunity from most lawsuits. But the judge said that immunity did not apply in this case. He went on to apply the Fourth Amendment and its reasonableness standard in determining whether the tribal officer used excessive force on the plaintiff.

"The court finds that Maikshilo's decision to perform the modified rear sentry takedown satisfies the standard of objective reasonableness… [But] the force applied to the back of D'Ambra's knee, sufficient to break off a two-inch piece of bone within the knee … was far beyond what was objectively reasonable under the circumstances faced by Maikshilo and constituted a tort within the limited waiver of sovereign immunity in the Mohegan Torts Code," Guernsey said.

Puhlick said it was interesting that the judge chose to apply federal constitutional law even though the Mohegan tribe — while it has adopted Connecticut common law — has not adopted the U.S. Constitution. The Mohegan tribe has its own constitution.

Defense counsel Robert Rhodes, of Halloran & Sage, in Westport, did not respond to a request for comment, including on whether his clients will appeal. Appeals are heard by the other four judges of the tribal court sitting en banc.

 

Supreme Court Allows Raging Bull Copyright Suit to Proceed

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, 6-3, today that the doctrine of laches, or undue delay, does not bar the heir of the coauthor of a screenplay that was that the basis of the boxing film, "Raging Bull," from suing for copyright infringement, Forbes reports. The ruling sets up a three-year rolling period in which copyright owners can sue for infringement, but they only can sue for profits earned during that three-year window.

There was an unusual lineup in the court's majority and dissent: "Conservative Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined in an opinion by liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg, while Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy joined a dissent by equally liberal Stephen Breyer," Forbes also reports.

Same-Sex Adoptions Halted in Utah

The Utah Supreme Court has temporarily halted the issuance of birth certificates in same-sex parent adoptions, the Associated Press reports. One district court had ordered government officials to explain the state's refusal to recognize a same-sex couple's adoption, the AP further reports.

The 10th Circuit is currently deciding whether to uphold a lower-court ruling striking down Utah's ban on same-sex marriage.

Supreme Court Will Consider Reporters Privilege Case May 29

The petition of certiorari made by New York Times reporter James Risen, who the Fourth Circuit has ruled must identify a confidential source in the case of a former CIA agent suspected of being a leaker, will be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court at a May 29 conference, SCOTUSblog reports.

Lee Levine, a leading First Amendment lawyer with Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, has said he does not think that the U.S. Supreme Court would take the case. If the U.S. Supreme Court takes the case, there could be five votes in favor of recognizing a qualified common law privilege for reporters’ confidential sources, Levine said. Justice Anthony Kennedy would be the key vote, he said.

Europe Siding with Right to Be Forgotten Over Free Speech

The Washington Post reports on the Court of Justice of the European Union's's decision this week that Internet users have the right to demand that Google-search links be deleted. Europeans have the right to be forgotten. Americans don't. "Those seeking a similar right in the United States have stumbled upon the expansive free-speech protections in the First Amendment. Blocking access to even the most damaging information — mug shots, videos of intimate acts, or Web pages created by cyber-stalkers — can be difficult and often impossible, experts say. Online news accounts of past personal problems are even harder to leave behind," the Post further reports.

The European court, however, drew a distinction between newspapers keeping such news reports alive but not search engine results, the Post reports.

FCC Approves New Net Neutrality Plan

The Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 to approve new net neutrality rules, including favoring the creation of an internet fast lane, Gigaom's Stacey Higginbotham reports: "The FCC is proposing that it should use the authority that it has under Section 706 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act to regulate net neutrality, which unfortunately leaves the rules open to the possibility of paid prioritization."

Four Failed State Health Care Exchanges Cost $474 Million

An estimated $474 million in federal appropriations were spent on developing four state-level Obamacare exchanges that are "now in shambles," Politico reports. Massachusetts, Oregon, Nevada and Maryland now either have to move their residents onto the federal exchange or rebuild their systems, Politico further reports: "Nevada, for one, is still trying to figure out its future. Oregon has decided to switch to HealthCare.gov. Maryland wants to fix its own exchange, maybe by incorporating what worked in Connecticut. Massachusetts actually wants to do both — build a portal from scratch while planning a move to the federal exchange as a backup."

Sprint Given Secret Legal Basis for NSA Program, Washington Post Reports

Sprint, the country's third-largest wireless provider, was the only cellphone company to receive "the secret legal basis of a then-classified program that collected Americans’ phone records by the billions for counterterrorism purposes" because it was the only company to demand access to that legal rationale before the program was revealed last year by Edward Snowden's leaks, the Washington Post reports. After receiving the rationale, Sprint continued to turn over phone call records to the NSA, the Post also reports.

Idaho's Ban on Same-Sex Marriage Overturned

Idaho has become the latest state to have its ban on same-sex marriage overturned, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports. U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy Dale wrote, '''Idaho’s marriage laws withhold from them (gay and lesbian couples) a profound and personal choice, one that most can take for granted.  By doing so, Idaho’s marriage laws deny same-sex couples the economic, practical, emotional and spiritual benefits of marriage, relegating each couple to a stigmatized second class status.'"

Marriages can begin Friday morning.

Fourth Circuit Appears Divided On Same-Sex Marriage

The Fourth Circuit became the second federal appellate court to consider a decision to strike down a ban on same-sex marriage, Law.com's Marcia Coyle reports: "Judging by comments made by the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit hearing Virginia’s case, the fate of the state’s ban, one of the most restrictive in the country, could hang on the vote of one judge."

Some of the plaintiffs are represented by the same legal team that successfully challenged California's ban on same-sex marriage but did not get a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on whether states can limit marriage to unions between men and women, Coyle writes.

When the judges on the 10th Circuit heard an appeal of Utah's ban on same-sex marriage being struck down, they also appeared divided.
 

Pages

Subscribe to Cultivated Compendium RSS