In California The Police Are Being Sued Under Rico And The Color Of Law Statutes

[Oman]

What about:

 

Deprivation of rights under color of law.

 

42 USC 1983

 

A very common civil cause of action against police and other public officials flows from Title 42, Section 1983. This section is a version of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 that was subsequently codified (Bloss 1992; Robinson 1992). 19 The Act was written to provide a tort remedy in addition to the criminal remedies contained in the 1866 Civil Rights Act.20 The creation of a new remedy was intended to curb the complicity of state and local officials in Klan activities against recently freed slaves in the postbellum south (Webster v. City of Houston, (1984)). Section

1983 reads:

 

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any state of territory or the District of Columbia, subjects or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in any action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress".

 

And how about this:

 

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2010/03/26/lawsuit-could-expose-sfpd-abc-collaboration

 

Section 1983 Preliminary Issues

 

Who may be Parties?

 

The first portion of 42 USC §1983 articulates that infringements by those under color of law are actionable " by any citizen ... or person under the jurisdiction" of the United States. This broad statement allows a wide range of timely potential plaintiffs to bring actions. 23 Moreover, business entities (e.g. corporations), considered persons

by the law, may also bring §1983 causes of action (Swanson 1998). Lastly, this allows all citizens of the United States to bring actions also.

 

The statute's assertion that "every person acting under color of law" is liable also appears to create a large pool of potential defendants. The range of allowable defendants, however, is more restrictive in practice. Defendants to §1983 suits must be, local government entities, persons or business entities with a close connection to the government (del Carmen 1991). Private persons who lack a strong connection to local government officials or functions may not be targeted as defendants (Blum and Urbonya 1998).

 

Section 1983 plaintiffs may seek a wide rage of remedies. Typically, plaintiffs seek to be compensated for injuries sustained from official misconduct. Such compensatory damages may be special, general, or nominal.

 

"Special damages relate to specific pecuniary losses, such as lost earnings, medical expenses and loss of earning capacity. General damages include compensation for physical pain and suffering, as well as emotional distress. Nominal damages reflect the violation of a right with no proven actual injury" (Blum and Urbonya 1998:109).

 

Moreover, this provision applies to civil rights actions brought in state as well as federal courts (Witt 1998)!

 

Forum Issues

 

Once an aggrieved party decides to bring a civil suit against a police officer, supervisor, or municipality, the next decision is whether to bring that suit in a state or federal court. Relief sought under this provision is supplementary and distinct from any state provided method of redress.

 

Therefore, plaintiffs who decide to litigate their claim in federal court need not exhaust available state remedies prior to bringing suit (Monroe v. Pape, 1961; Pasty v. Board of Regents, 1982). 26

 

In general to establish a §1983 prima facia case a plaintiff must demonstrate four basic requirements.31 First, an officer must be acting under color of state law (del Carmen 1991; Vaughn and Coomes 1995; Kappeler 1993;Blum and Urbonya 1998). Second, he or she must show the deprivation of an established federal or constitutional right. Actions that violate state tort law are not automatically grounds for a §1983 action - the incident must involve a violation of a federal right (Albright v. Oliver, 1994). Third, the defendant must be shown to be culpable and to be the cause of plaintiff's harm. Last, the wise §1983 plaintiff alleges actual damages from the encounter

(Ryals 1995).

 

Typically, when an officer acts in a police function, concerns surrounding meeting this "color or law" requirement are minimal. The factors below tend to place officer actions "under color of law", one factor may be sufficient, but an affirmative determination is more likely with the presence of multiple factors. The factors often considered are:

 

"If officers identify themselves as law enforcement agents; If officers perform duties of criminal investigation; If

officers file official police documents; If officers attempt or make an arrest; If officers display or use police weapons on equipment; If officers act pursuant to a state statute or city ordinance; If officers intimidate citizens from exercising their rights" (Vaughn and Coomes 1995:09).

 

http://www.cech.uc.edu/criminaljustice/files/2010/08/Tad.pdf

[+EdwardGlen]

We'd need an Attorney General with balls to bring suit against any LEO's in this state. The cops run this state that's being made very clear everyday if not, none of this would be happening.

 

How many illegal raids, arrests and property seizures have been made and cox hasn't done a freaking thing to stop them. Nor has any other LEO with integrity stood up and said, "this is wrong. we're the one's breaking the law not the patient or caregiver" not one!

 

Can't trust the police or our elected officials who do we trust? What are parents these days given the currant state of criminal police actions and the failure of politicians to help and protect their constituents teaching their kids.

[capoalto]

with big titanium bawls

[DT61]

But, what if it's a woman?

[+EdwardGlen]

I know woman who have bigger ones then some men and I don't care who stands up for us in Lansing as long as someone does!

 

Its getting Orwellian in this state. Cops are out of control, politicians are impotent and weak minded and the sick are being arrested and jailed.

[puffaway]

In our case its Moles of Kryptonite

[+Silverblue]

We need someone who's not afraid of going after these thugs, who'll do something about the injustice and corruption, someone who WILL stop the raids, etc., and make those turds give back everything, if they can't return the possessions because they were destroyed, then they'll have to pay out of their own pockets, PLUS court costs, and other expenses. Those corrupt aholes will be convicted, fined, jailed, lose their jobs, lose their right to have weapons, lose their right to vote, too, and they'd have to be carefully monitored for the rest of their miserable lives.

 

Sb

[Phil78]

leo has gotten used to being able to play dumb to this law, and every day they are allowed to do this, they get more and more "dumb" to it. if they play they are dumb to "A" of the law today, and they are allowed to do so, tomorrow, they will be dumb to "A" AND "B." The next day, "A," "B" and "C."

 

ridiculous. what do they think they're "protecting" us from, and how is this "serving" us.

 

this law is getting to the point to where it is just setting the mmj users out there (ducks) to be picked off one by one. easy targets, no danger from harassing law-abiding citizens, but yet they look like (or, should I say "feel like") hero's.

[Phil78]

we need that media w**re Fieger to get off his behind and start working these. if anyone can bring the media running, it will be him. ACLU isn't doing much