Harris Can Sue Agents, Court Rules Appeals Court Rejects Attempts To Dismiss Suit
A wounded survivor of the Ruby Ridge shootout can sue federal agents for allegedly lying about his role and adopting a shoot-on-sight policy, a throwback to the “wild West school of law enforcement,” a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected attempts by U.S. marshals and FBI agents to dismiss a $10 million damage suit by Kevin L. Harris stemming from the August 1992 shootings at the Idaho cabin of white separatist Randy Weaver.
Weaver’s wife, Vicki, and 14-year-old son, Samuel, and Deputy U.S. Marshal William Degan were killed. Harris, a friend of Weaver’s who was staying at the cabin, was hit by the same FBI sniper’s bullet that killed Vicki Weaver and surrendered after an 11-day siege.
Weaver settled his damage suit for $3.1 million in 1995. Later that year, five deputy marshals, including two of the defendants in Harris’ suit, were given the U.S. Marshals Service’s highest award for their actions at Ruby Ridge.
Harris, now of Republic, Wash., was acquitted of murder charges in federal court in 1993 but was charged with murder in Idaho state court last month by Boundary County prosecutors. The local prosecutors also charged Lon Horiuchi, the FBI marksman who fired the shot that killed Vicki Weaver.
Thursday’s ruling upheld a federal judge’s decision that Harris can sue 13 federal agents for allegedly subjecting him to excessive force and false arrest in violation of his constitutional rights.
The suit said two marshals, Arthur Roderick and Larry Cooper, falsely told other officers that Harris fired first in the initial confrontation on Weaver’s property, in which Degan and Samuel Weaver were killed.
The suit also challenged the adoption of special FBI “rules of engagement” that allowed officers to shoot any armed adult male they saw near the cabin, regardless of whether the target posed an immediate threat to the officer.
The officers denied lying about Harris’ role but sought dismissal of the suit on the grounds that they had violated no clearly established constitutional rights, even if Harris’ factual allegations were true. The appeals court disagreed in a 3-0 ruling.
If Roderick and Cooper falsely blamed Harris for the initial shootings, they should have known that they were putting him in danger of being shot, said the opinion by Judge Stephen Reinhardt. Because the officers’ statements may have been crucial in getting Harris charged with murder, they can also be sued for their allegedly false testimony at his trial, despite the normal police immunity for trial testimony, Judge Stephen Reinhardt said.
Reinhardt said the shoot-on-sight policy was a departure from the usual FBI rules and U.S. Supreme Court standards, both of which allow deadly force only to protect officers or others from serious harm.
“The alteration of those rules … constitutes a gross deviation from constitutional principles and a wholly unwarranted return to a lawless and arbitrary wild West school of law enforcement,” Reinhardt said. He said “any reasonable law enforcement officer” should have known the rules were illegal.
The court also said Harris could sue Horiuchi for shooting him. The FBI agent’s argument, that Harris would have posed a greater danger if he had been allowed to reenter the cabin, ignored the fact that Harris posed no immediate threat to Horiuchi or anyone else, Reinhardt said.
MEMO: Cut in Spokane edition