Client was an African American female detained for approximately twenty hours. The allegation was she was selling marijuana. No marijuana was found on her person. The judge threw the charges out at the arraignment. She worked for NYC and was drug tested subsequent to this and lost about a week of work. The client wanted to proceed with the settlement to be done with everything. She did not seek any medical (psychological or otherwise) attention and lost about $375 in wages.
Three plaintiffs brought consolidated cases against a Lowell detective and the City of Lowell. In 2012, informants planted drugs in the plaintiffs’ cars. Plaintiffs were falsely charged with trafficking in cocaine; charges pended for over 1 year, over 6 months, and over 5 months (w/ 3.5 months in custody). They faced mandatory minimums of 3, 2, and 8 years. All charges were dismissed due to revelation of the informants’ misconduct. The detective knew his informants were not trustworthy.
On March 16, 2006, Somerville officer Freitas, who was off-duty and had been drinking, confronted Gerard Contaldi (15) and his friends about kicking a recycling bin near Freitas’s sports car. Freitas called Gerard an idiot and slapped him. One of Gerard’s friends pushed Freitas, then the boys ran away. Officers stopped Gerard, threw him to the ground, and cuffed him. An officer pressed Gerard’s face in the gravel. Freitas hit Gerard in the eye with a flashlight.
Plaintiff, Gerald Wilcox, 43, was arrested in his home in a quiet Detroit suburb by two Detroit Police Dep’t. officers looking for a Gerald Wilcox in his 20s who robbed a Family Dollar store in Detroit the previous day. The warrantless arrest, without consent or exigent circumstances, occurred in front of Wilcox’s wife and teenge son. Wilcox spent 15 days in the county jail before the Officer-in-Charge admitted that he learned the night of the arrest that the plaintiff was the wrong person. Charges were dismissed 6 weeks after the arrest when an eyewitness told the prosecutor that Mr.
Plaintiff was wrongfully convicted of a 1984 double homicide and sentenced to death, then re-tried and acquitted in 2009. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Officers fabricated false eyewitness identifications and false inculpatory testimony from informants, and suppressed exculpatory evidence by burying it in a street file. Plaintiff alleged that the suppression of the street file was caused by the policies and practices of the City of Chicago. The Defendants contended that Plaintiff was guilty of the double homicide.
Plaintiff was arrested for a homicide in 2006, underwent two jury trials, was convicted and served 7 years of a life sentence before one of the perps of the original crime was picked up by the feds. He gave a proffer statement which led to a re-investigation of the homicide by the feds and one lamplighter LEO, where it was discovered that 2 police reports containing exculpatory information for Plaintiff and INCULPATING the true killer were removed from the homicide file. After motion for new trial, prosecutor dismissed in 2014.
On Jan 30, 2010, Mr. Conforti traveled to Westport to help his sister, who is confined to a wheelchair. Mr. Conforti made arrangements with his sister’s neighbor to collect fallen branches from the neighbor’s yard, in order to heat his sister’s home. As Mr. Conforti drove through the neighborhood, he was followed by off-duty officer Napert. Napert arrested Mr. Conforti for larceny of wood, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. Witnesses heard Mr. Conforti, a cancer survivor who had tracheal resection surgery, plead for help because he had wires in his chest and he had trouble breathing.
On May 19, 2010, Boston police officers arrested Ms. Wernikoff, a male-to-female transgender woman, because she was using the women’s bathroom at a homeless shelter. Ms. Wernikoff’s use of the bathroom based on her gender identity was entirely appropriate, as both BPHC policy and a Boston city ordinance make clear. Officers took Ms. Wernikoff to the police station, where male officers including forced her to remove her shirt and bra, exposing her breasts, and to jump up and down, causing her breasts to jiggle. The officers laughed at Ms. Wernikoff. She felt humiliated and degraded.
Thompson v. Clark asks whether an individual seized during criminal proceedings in violation of the Fourth Amendment must prove that the criminal proceedings ended in a manner indicative of their innocence before bringing a section 1983 action to redress the violation of their constitutional rights. This brief argues that criminal proceedings terminating in a manner indicating innocence is not a requirement for individuals seeking a 1983 claim.
Thompson v. Clark asks whether an individual seized during criminal proceedings in violation of the Fourth Amendment must prove that the criminal proceedings ended in a manner indicative of their innocence before bringing a section 1983 action to redress the violation of their constitutional rights. This brief argues that criminal proceedings terminating in a manner indicating innocence is not a requirement for individuals seeking a 1983 claim.