Did Petco get sued
ATF agent accuses Columbus police officers of excessive force
An agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has filed a federal lawsuit accusing two Columbus police officers of using excessive force against him while he was working in his official capacity.
Agent James Burk, a 16-year veteran of the ATF, said in the lawsuit he was working a "routine" assignment on July 7. That afternoon, hewent to a home on the 3300 block of Edgebrook Drive near Dublin to retrieve a shotgun from someone who was not permitted to have a firearm.
The lawsuit said Burk was in his normal work attire, which was described as "casual professional" with his credentials in a pocket and an ID card around his neck.
When Burk knocked on the door of the home, a person inside called 911 and read the dispatcher Burk's badge number while refusing to open the door.
According to the lawsuit, this happens routinely and Burk had never had any issue with dispatchers or officers verifying his status as an ATF agent on assignment.
However, in this instance, Burk said the dispatcher told the 911 caller not to answer the door and dispatched Columbus police officers Joseph Fihe, a 20-year member of the division,and Kevin Winchell, who is also a 20-year veteran officer.
"When Fihe arrived at the scene, Agent Burk stood outside the home's front door and waved the officer over to where he was standing," the lawsuit said. "Even though Agent Burk had both hands raised and had represented that he is a federal agent, officer Fihe immediately drew his weapon and pointed it ... while simultaneously screaming at (Burk) to get on the ground."
The lawsuit said Burk told Fihe and Winchell, who arrived a short time later and also drew his gun while ordering Burk to the ground, that his credentials were in his pocket.
Fihe pointed his firearm at Burk for more than 90 seconds, according to the lawsuit, before both Fihe and Winchell "climbed on his back while violently twisting and pulling his arms to handcuff him."
The lawsuit said the officers also used a Taser on Burk multiple times while he was face down and "not evading arrest" before handcuffing Burk and placing him in the back of a cruiser, a process that involved pulling him into the car because a seatbelt was in the way.
After about an hour, during which Burk said he was denied water and "frequently disparaged ... to everyone in earshot" by Fihe, Burk was released without charges.
"Agent Burk acted lawfully and posed no immediate threat to officers Fihe and Winchell or anyone else," the lawsuit said. "Agent Burk did not resist the officers, attempt to flee from their custody or display any physical aggressiveness towards them."
The lawsuit said body cameras captured much of the incident and that the footage was shared within CPD for no apparent purpose.
Burk has since moved to an administrative role within ATF because of the incident and injuries, both physical and psychological, Burk says he suffered.
The lawsuit names the City of Columbus, Fihe and Winchell as defendants and argues this is part of a pattern of misconduct by Columbus police and a lack of investigation into officers' behavior, calling it "unconstitutional policing."
The Division of Police said it doesnot comment on pending litigation.
@bethany_bruner
Columbus heads off jury verdict, pays $440k settlement over officer's use of force
While a jury deliberated, the city of Columbus reached a deal to pay $440,000 to settle a civil lawsuit filed in federal court against a police officer accused of using excessive force during a 2018 arrest for an unpaid traffic ticket, according to the man's attorneys.
Attorneys for Cameryn Standifer, 27, had argued at trial this week that Columbus police officer Brandon Harmon greatly exacerbated Standifer's preexisting injuries from a car crash about three months during an arrest over the outstanding traffic ticket. Standifer had been seeking reimbursement for medical bills exceeding $1 million and compensation for his suffering.
A federal jury in Columbus deliberated Thursday afternoon and much of Friday before the city and Standifer's attorneys reached an agreement on their own at around 3 p.m. Friday, said Jessica Olsheski who represents Standifer along with Matthew Doyaga.
"On behalf of our client, we are extremely pleased with the outcome of settlement negotiations," Olsheski said. "This will improve Cameryns opportunities for success in his life going forward."
The monetary settlement amount is designed to compensate Standifer for new injuries sustained during his interactions with Harmon and for emotional pain and distress, Olsheski said, but not for an infection he was diagnosed with a few days after he was released from jail.
A spokesperson for Columbus City Attorney Zach Kleins office, which defended Harmon in court, did not immediately return a request for comment Friday evening.
The settlement is the latest payoff by the city to settle a lawsuit filed over the actions of Columbus Division of Police members. The city has paid millions to settle cases in recent years, including $10 million to the family of Andre Hill, an unarmed Black man fatally shot in December 2020 by former officer Adam Coy, who is expected to face trial next year on charges of murder, reckless homicide, felonious assault and dereliction of duty.
When Standifer first filed the lawsuit in September 2019, he also sued the city of Columbus, four other police officers, Franklin County and three employees of the Franklin County jail. They all have since been dropped from the suit.
Context:VIDEO: Did Columbus officer use excessive force in 2018 arrest for unpaid traffic ticket?
More:Judge: Columbus police officer not guilty of dereliction of duty during 2020 summer protests
Officer took Standifer to the ground while arresting him for a warrant on an unpaid traffic ticket
The incident over which Standifer sued was an arrest made on Aug. 1, 2018 at a home on the Far East Side. Columbus police responded to the home on multiple complaints of illegal activity. With permission, officers entered the residence and took the identifications of all of people there.
Harmon took down Standifers social security number, ran a warrant check and discovered Standifer had an active warrant for an unpaid traffic ticket, court documents state.
Video captured by another officers body camera and provided to The Dispatch by Standifers attorneys shows the incident, including Harmon arresting Standifer.
In the video, Harmon directs Standifer to get up off the couch and put his hands behind his back, which he does. Harmon tells Standifer to relax and not tense up. In a use-of-force report, Harmon said Standifer had locked both his arms out.
The video shows Harmon placing Standifer against a wall briefly. Then, Harmon took him to the ground.
A car crash on May 17, 2018, had left Standifer with severe injuries, according to his attorneys.
In court documents, Standifer's attorneys said the violent take-down by Harmon reopened Standifer's leg wound and injured Harmon's right arm, causing an open wound near his elbow.
After he was released from jail, Harmon went to OhioHealth Grant Medical Center a few days later. His diagnoses included a MRSA infection and he was hospitalized for almost a month while he underwent multiple procedures, Standifers attorneys said.
Standifers medical bills exceeded $1.2 million, according to his attorneys. Since the city did not agree to compensate Standifer for the infection, he will not have to pay the insurance back for all of his medical bills.
@LairdWrites
More:Only one Columbus officer to face internal review over alleged 2020 protest misconduct
Law360
By Melissa Angell (December 21, 2020, 5:52 PM EST) -- A proposed class of Petco Animal Supplies Stores Inc. customers hit thestore and its subsidiary with a putative class action Friday in California federal court, accusing it of not adequately encryptingtheirpayment card informationfollowing a data breach that potentially compromised their accounts....
Law360 is on it, so you are, too.
A Law360 subscription puts you at the center of fast-moving legal issues, trends and developments so you can act with speed and confidence. Over 200 articles are published daily across more than 60 topics, industries, practice areas and jurisdictions.
A Law360 subscription includes features such as
- Daily newsletters
- Expert analysis
- Mobile app
- Advanced search
- Judge information
- Real-time alerts
- 450K+ searchable archived articles
And more!
Experience Law360 today with a free 7-day trial.
Can a 911 Operator be Sued for Negligence?
When we think of first responders, we normally think of public servants such as police officers or the fire department. We do not often think of 911 operators, who, despite not physically being at the scene of an emergency, are often the first and most important link to getting help where its needed.
Of course most 911 operators do a fantastic job in what is admittedly a high-stress position. What happens when a 911 operator drops the ball? Can a 911 operator be sued for negligence the way that any other person or public servant can?
Few Cases Define Scope of Liability
There are not many Florida cases that deal with this unique issue. One of the most recent cases involved a situation in which a woman called 911 because her husband was experiencing breathing problems and pulmonary distress. The 911 operator told her that help was on the way, but as she was waiting, her husbands condition worsened.
When the woman asked the operator what to do then, the operator told her to just leave him there until EMS arrived. However, by the time EMS did arrive it was too late and the man died at the scene.
The woman sued the sheriff alleging negligence of the 911 operator. She specifically alleged that the 911 operator gave her the wrong impression about the seriousness of her husbands condition and telling her to do nothing constituted negligent advice. She also alleged that valuable time was lost when she followed that advice when she could otherwise have been administering CPR to him.
Analyzing Government Liability
The trial court dismissed the case and the matter went to an appellate court. As a government agent, an analysis of a 911 agents liability entails understanding of how and when government agencies can be sued.
Courts have divided government liability into four categories:
- Category I activities include legislative, permitting, and executive functions, like lawmaking, or the way that an officer in the executive branch carries out job duties
- Category II includes law enforcement protecting the public
- Category III concerns capital improvements and management of government property
- Category IV includes providing professional, educational, and other services for the welfare of citizens, such as doctors who work at public hospitals or public school teachers
Governments are liable in different ways for these different categories. With the first two, there is no liability by the government unless some special relationship is created. As relates to a 911 operator, showing that relationship requires showing:
- An express promise or assurance of assistance;
- Reliance by the victim on the promise or assurance of assistance; and,
- Damages caused by relying on the promise or assurance of assistance.
For example, if a 911 operator were to assure someone that law enforcement was on the way, when in fact law enforcement had not even been called, a special relationship might exist. In that situation, help is being explicitly promised to the victim, and the victim is relying on the 911 operators assurances.
It is much easier to show government liability for categories III and IV. Where government agents negligently carry out duties, they can be held liable.
Court Finds No Liability
In this case, the Court held that a 911 operators duties constituted law enforcement, and thus fell under Category II, making it much more difficult for the victim to make her claim unless she could show a special relationship.
Here, the 911 operator did say that help was on the way, but that was true; help was, in fact, on the way and eventually did arrive. Thus, the Court found that no special relationship was created. The operator did not control the situation, and the Court did not believe that anything she said or did increased any risk to the womans husband.
Although it could be said that telling the woman to just wait for EMS was incorrect, it was not enough for her to argue that she could possibly have done something to help her husband had she been told differently, and that he possibly would have survived. The Court found that to be mere speculation.
Operators can Still be Negligent
The case solidifies the law in Florida that 911 operators have to blatantly misrepresent some fact or make some assurance of help that is false, in order to be negligent. That means it is not enough to argue that a 911 operator acted too slowly, or to second guess a 911 operators advice.
Situations giving rise to liability would be where an operator says help is coming when it has not been called, or where help is sent to an incorrect address or location.
It is also possible that an operators advice that is totally out of bounds could also give rise to liabilityfor example, if an operator were to say something outrageous like tell someone not to rescue a drowning person, if an operator rendered improper medical advice over the phone, or if an operator completely refused to call for help. One example is a Houston operator who admitted to hanging up on callers simply because she did not want to talk to anyone.
Expert Testimony May be Needed
Expert testimony in these kinds of cases may be needed to see if the operator followed the policies and procedures, whether the closest available first responders were called, and whether they were given sufficient information. Certain kinds of 911 calls are treated differently based on emergency level, and experts will determine whether proper codes were used to indicate that level.
If you feel that a government agency or officer is negligent and has caused you injuries make sure that you know your rights. Contact Brill & Rinaldi today for a free consultation to discuss your injury case.
