December 9, 2011 in City

County stands by deputies in lawsuit

Plaintiff was injured in 2009 confrontation

John Craig The Spokesman-Review

Tags:Civil Rightscounty commissionersdeputiesfederal courtGlen HinckleyJohn Charles HudsonSheriff Ozzie KnezovichSpokane CountyWalter Loucks

Spokane County will stand behind two sheriff’s deputies who broke a Spokane Valley man’s rib and punctured his lung when they were dispatched to help him in September 2009.

County commissioners voted this week to defend Deputies Glen Hinckley and Walter Loucks in a federal civil rights lawsuit and pay any punitive damages, which aren’t automatically covered under the county’s liability insurance.

Hinckley and Loucks were dispatched to John Hudson’s home in the 4300 block of North Lillian Road to check on a report that he might have been suicidal. The information came from his girlfriend’s son.

Hudson, 42, said he had been sleeping when the deputies arrived about 8 a.m., and he went to his front porch to talk to them.

Both sides agree that when Hinckley and Loucks asked whether Hudson had ever contemplated suicide, he said something like, “I have thought about it many times, but I’m still here.”

Hudson claims one of the deputies then responded with an obscenity: “We don’t need your mouth, just answer the … questions.”

The county denies that claim, and Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich said the deputies were warned that Hudson had weapons and reported that Hudson threatened violence against emergency responders and to shoot anyone who came to his house.

Hudson said in his complaint that Loucks and Hinckley dragged him off the porch by his hair and threw him face-down onto the ground when he told them he was going back to bed.

He said wasn’t able to put his hands behind his back as ordered because the deputies had their knees on his neck and back.

One of the officers choked him while the other struck his back at least eight times with a closed fist, Hudson said in his lawsuit. He said the blows broke one of his ribs, puncturing his left lung and causing it to collapse.

County officials acknowledge Hudson’s injuries.

“There were hammer blows to the back of the body,” Knezovich said.

But he said a use-of-force expert “found that there was no policy violation and, based on what I’ve seen of it, I don’t think they did anything wrong.”

Knezovich said the deputies couldn’t allow Hudson to go back into his house because of the threats he made and the possibility that he had weapons.

Hudson couldn’t be reached for comment.

He was charged with resisting arrest and obstructing a public servant. The obstructing charge was dropped immediately, and the resisting charge was dismissed after Hudson went six months without another violation.

Hudson had to acquiesce to the allegations against him to obtain the six-month continuance for dismissal. County attorney Dan Catt said in a court document that Hudson’s admission “precludes all or some of his claims.”

Hudson caused his injuries “by failing to obey lawful orders,” Catt said.

30 comments on this story so far. Add yours!

Notapatriot on December 09 at 5:12 a.m.
Thugs. Unbelievable. I would very much like to have respect for the police but these continuing stories of their strong arm tactics have got to stop. Playground punk bullies that grew up and got a gun and a badge.
Orphan on December 09 at 6:37 a.m.
A very good example of why you dont talk to Cops. Unless you called them dont answer the door when they show up. Do not give your ID or name to Cops unless your are officialy arrested. You have the right to remain silent at all times. You do not have to give them your DL unless you are driving. Dont call the Cops in the 1st place. Shun the Cops as much as possable. I quit going to a gas station because the Sheriffs Deputys hang out there on breaks that seem to last an hour or more, I consider it to be a very dangerous place to be.
philipgregory on December 09 at 6:46 a.m.
VOTERS!
Remember the county Commissioners’ support of police brutality!
wdodd on December 09 at 7:05 a.m.
Were these the same people who also determined that there was no use of excessive force in the Otto Zehm case?
The timing is about right when an increase in OID/OIS were becoming a daily event. Now this has come to a screeching halt.
Could this little rogue show is being placed on hold because of all of the media and federal attention they are recieving on a national basis?
This goes to show how Ozzie is operating his department.
Ozzie if you can’t clean up your department and do your job maybe YOU NEED TO BE RECALLED AS WELL!!!!
This is another fine example why Ozzie should not operate the SPD because he cannot operate or control his own little palace.
misjustice on December 09 at 7:26 a.m.
Wow! Our County Commissioners and OUR tax dollars, hard at work!
Here we go AGAIN!
DickAdams on December 09 at 7:49 a.m.
And Ozzie wants to be in command of the SPD handling both his deputies and the Spokane cops. Wouldn`t that be dandy. Yikes!!
de3 on December 09 at 9:19 a.m.
In this County the victims will have more credibility than the police. We now know, after the Thompson’s trial, that the police admit to lying to cover up their actions.
kennyhuston on December 09 at 9:57 a.m.
Suicide via sleep, hmmmmm, must have had a tailpipe sticking in thru his bedroom window. So when they get a call of a person despondent enough to contemplate taking their own life - the police’s response?
Per the article, “Loucks and Hinckley dragged him off the porch by his hair and threw him face-down onto the ground when he told them he was going back to bed.
He said wasn’t able to put his hands behind his back as ordered because the deputies had their knees on his neck and back.
One of the officers choked him while the other struck his back at least eight times with a closed fist, Hudson said in his lawsuit. He said the blows broke one of his ribs, puncturing his left lung and causing it to collapse.
County officials acknowledge Hudson’s injuries.
“There were hammer blows to the back of the body,” Knezovich said.”.
So you’re telling me that this is an appropriate response to a suicidal person who is obviously in need of professional mental health?
My late friend Bobby Shurbutt probably suffered less pain having made that desperate jump off of the Monroe Street Bridge rather than having had the SPD respond to his imminently dire situation.
This last thought sickens me!!!!!
JanB on December 09 at 3:02 p.m.
Whatever happened to common sense and treating people humanely? Appalling.
EthicsinLE on December 09 at 3:34 p.m.
I would encourage you all to read the complete report before forming an opinion. That’s the problem here, to many base their “Opinion” on the local media, which has a long history of being biased, inaccurate and deceptive to put it mildly. How about this – before you form an opinion, go down, get a copy of the report, read it, then form an opinion. No, that would require getting off your butt and putting some effort into it. Guess it’s easier to get your “Facts” from the SR. The level of ignorance is astounding.
UA_Big_Dummy on December 09 at 8:32 p.m.
Excluding the SR, there are reliable, factual and believable sources of information regarding police tactics and the circumstances that provoked their deployment in this situation. As another person has suggested here, rise above your desire to hoard calories and ride the bus down to the public safety building and request a copy of the support. With that in hand, and a little exercise under your belts, head for the library, or your friendly PC and research the obligations the police have - per statute - when dealing with individuals who are suicidal. Once you possess an inkling of knowldge regarding these relavent issues - return and enlighten us. Otherwise SHUT UP!
UA_Big_Dummy on December 09 at 8:46 p.m.
Allow me to assist the lazy.
RCW 71.05.153
Emergent detention of persons with mental disorders — Procedure.
(1) When a designated mental health professional receives information alleging that a person, as the result of a mental disorder, presents an imminent likelihood of serious harm, or is in imminent danger because of being gravely disabled, after investigation and evaluation of the specific facts alleged and of the reliability and credibility of the person or persons providing the information if any, the designated mental health professional may take such person, or cause by oral or written order such person to be taken into emergency custody in an evaluation and treatment facility for not more than seventy-two hours as described in RCW 71.05.180.
(2) A peace officer may take or cause such person to be taken into custody and immediately delivered to a triage facility, crisis stabilization unit, evaluation and treatment facility, or the emergency department of a local hospital under the following circumstances:
(a) Pursuant to subsection (1) of this section; or
(b) When he or she has reasonable cause to believe that such person is suffering from a mental disorder and presents an imminent likelihood of serious harm or is in imminent danger because of being gravely disabled.
(3) Persons delivered to a crisis stabilization unit, evaluation and treatment facility, emergency department of a local hospital, or triage facility that has elected to operate as an involuntary facility by peace officers pursuant to subsection (2) of this section may be held by the facility for a period of up to twelve hours.
(4) Within three hours of arrival, the person must be examined by a mental health professional. Within twelve hours of arrival, the designated mental health professional must determine whether the individual meets detention criteria. If the individual is detained, the designated mental health professional shall file a petition for detention or a supplemental petition as appropriate and commence service on the designated attorney for the detained person. If the individual is released to the community, the mental health provider shall inform the peace officer of the release within a reasonable period of time after the release if the peace officer has specifically requested notification and provided contact information to the provider.
UA_Big_Dummy on December 09 at 8:47 p.m.
And the definition of a mental disorder:
“Mental disorder” means any organic, mental, or emotional impairment which has substantial adverse effects on a person’s cognitive or volitional functions;
UA_Big_Dummy on December 09 at 8:52 p.m.
I’m on a roll here, please continue to read and absorb the knowledge:
RCW 71.05.120
Exemptions from liability.
(1) No officer of a public or private agency, nor the superintendent, professional person in charge, his or her professional designee, or attending staff of any such agency, nor any public official performing functions necessary to the administration of this chapter, nor peace officer responsible for detaining a person pursuant to this chapter, nor any *county designated mental health professional, nor the state, a unit of local government, or an evaluation and treatment facility shall be civilly or criminally liable for performing duties pursuant to this chapter with regard to the decision of whether to admit, discharge, release, administer antipsychotic medications, or detain a person for evaluation and treatment: PROVIDED, That such duties were performed in good faith and without gross negligence.
UA_Big_Dummy on December 09 at 9:09 p.m.
Hey, I heard that Hudson plead guilty to resisting this arrest? Why would his CRIMINAL defense attorney allow that to occur?
Shelala on December 09 at 10:25 p.m.
@UABigdummy
I am familiar with the statute. What you have pulled from the RCW merely authorizes law enforcement personnel to take custody and deliver the mentally impaired person to a mental facility or hospital emergency room in the absence of a criminal act. The sole purpose for law enforcement to respond is to prevent the person from harming himself or others during the transport “. It’s pretty much a no brainer to figure out a suspect in a suicidal state is going to be pretty unreasonable. It’s not “open season” .The responding officers knew the situation prior to responding. What is really telling here is that there is a woeful lack of training in dealing with these issues and their response to most all situations seems to be viewed as an opportunity for violence and to flex a little muscle. Even sadder yet, is that a lot of people who might need some assistance in getting an uncooperative loved one immediate help, will hesitate or fail to call law enforcement for fear they will be indirectly responsible for causing the person greater pain and try to handle the situation by themselves with disastrous results. With better training and a better attitude, these injuries would never have happened.
D Statler on December 10 at 7:32 a.m.
@Uabigdummy, “That such duties were performed in good faith and without gross negligence” There in lays the problem. The chief admitts multiple body blows to the victim causing the broken ribs, damages and complaints. These officers DID and are guilty of using excessive force for the situation. You mention acquiring and reading the police reports.The reports were written by the offending officers. Sometimes altered later to cover the facts and discrepencies.
That is the same issue that has caused all the problems with law enforcement lately.The paramilitary tactics training and attitude in general should be left for the military. This is not part of the training that real PEACE OFFICERS need.
Thanks for your informational posts backing your point of view. My proof for my point of view is listed in the CREACH, ZEHM and DODD reports. I am very happy that these incidents have came to a screaching halt.
brianrbreen on December 10 at 9:01 a.m.
@UABigDummy
I certainly don’t know anything about the facts of the case. But I’m wondering if the obvious vitriol directed at the folks posting on here, and the media doesn’t help to substantiate what many people believe represents an attitude problem on the part of some members of local law enforcement.
I’m certainly no expert, but I do know a little about 1983 claims and it appears to me, as Shelala and D Statler point out, the issue of whether or not the officers actions were reasonable, in good faith, and without negligence is something the court will have to decide when the County seeks a summary judgment. The actions of the officers may well have been all of those, but it is difficult to tell without all the facts, and in most cases even at trial not all of the facts come out. The media in most cases only has the filed claim to report from, and they did give Ozzie a chance to respond. I’m sure that a response to the claim will be filed at some point and perhaps then one could gain a better understanding of the situation.
UABigDummy, although this case deals with the officers actions under Washington State Law, because it is a 1983 action, you might want to look at the case law from the 9th Circus regarding what is reasonable, in good faith, and without negligence, and where a similar fact pattern exists, because ultimately those cases will have a bearing on the way the 1983 action is handled. They actually aren’t too hard to find even for lazy folks like me with access to Lexis Nexis.
I might just add that from the news article we don’t know whether or not the mental health professional who did the evaluation of Mr. Hudson within the three hour limit had enough cause to hold Hudson for the statutory 72 hours. That would be interesting to me, and if that MHP did have cause, that would in my mind support the officers. On the other hand, if the MHP did not, and Hudson was immediately booked, my hope is the officers will be able to honestly and clearly articulate that their actions were reasonable, in good faith, and without negligence.
Indie on December 10 at 9:29 a.m.
mentally unstable = “I’m going back to bed”.
Truthbtold on December 10 at 10:15 a.m.
Ok, I have done my research, Comments have been blasting Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich.
Don’t think I missed anything, but how exactly is he responsible for the county commissioners actions?
It saddens me that the SR and others add to the issue of distrust of our law enforcement. I have said this at least 100 times, just because one or two apples are bad, doesn’t mean the whole bushel is. Show the “good ones” respect, please. Come on guys, they put their lives on the line everyday. How would you like to have a job that people in which you are protecting would rather spit on you.
They are NOT all bad………..
None of us were there, so lets not throw stones….This decision was the County Commissioners, not Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich.
Place the blame “of your opinions” where it should be. And REMEMBER this when the 3 commissioners are up for reelection.
Truthbtold on December 10 at 10:21 a.m.
PS…
I suggest expressing to the County Commissioners if you are dissatisfied with their decisions. E-mail them, write them a letter, etc.
Without the citizens “voicing concerns” on what they are doing with our taxes, it leaves them without accountability to “We the People”.
Shelala on December 10 at 10:30 a.m.
@Shannon
Oh Shannon, Shannon, Shannon
The entire situation would be moot if the Deputy’s actions were not called into question in the first place and those Deputies are supposedly working under the control and guidance of Ozzie. Yes, let’s put the blame directly on those who actually participated and made this an issue. Your research and conclusions are convoluted.
brianrbreen on December 10 at 10:50 a.m.
@ShannonSullivan
Steve Tuckers office would have reviewed the claim and made a recommendation to the County Commissioners regarding indemnifying the officers, or seeking a severance. So they must have been convinced by staff that the actions of the officers were reasonable, in good faith, without negligence, as well as according to training, policy and procedure.
Please notice I didn’t throw stones at anyone other then those LE supporters that seem to have a propensity for trying to belittle the public and the media. I don’t think that is helpful.
The good cops far, far, out number the bad cops, and there is nothing here to say these two aren’t good cops, that was my point. It will be up to the court to decide if they done wrong. But by the same token sometimes the ardent LE supporters post on here things that are not necessarily true, accurate, or in full context.
I must admit that I’m a little confused by UABigDummy’s posts, because in the past they haven’t been real favorable to the Sheriff.
UA_Big_Dummy on April 09 at 10:26 p.m.
Knezovich is just trying to sure up his Regional Police force bid. He’s a clown!
Shelala on December 10 at 11:10 a.m.
@Brian and Shannon
“The good cops far, far, out number the bad cops, and there is nothing here to say these two aren’t good cops”
Hello, good cop? Hello…hello..hello…(silence).
Car 54, where are you?
samvimes on December 10 at 1:03 p.m.
@UABigDummy
If I may sum up your “lesson”: If the cops think you might be suicidal they can do whatever they want and you can’t do anything about it.
Do I have that approximately right?
UA_Big_Dummy on December 10 at 10:43 p.m.
@brianrbreen
Actually, I will forgo your advice regarding the opinions of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals given the fact that a police use of force is generally guided by the decision delivered by the United States Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor 490 US 386, 109 S. Ct. 1865, 104 L. Ed. 2d 443 (1989). There is where I would direct everyone’s attention in your passionate endeavors to grasp the concept of what the court viewed as an acceptable standard for a police use of force.
Similar to the circumstances under scrutiny here, the officer’s in this case were subjected to an action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a violation of his 4th Amendment right under the circumstances: “Respondent Connor, an officer of the Charlotte, North Carolina, Police Department, saw Graham hastily enter and leave the store. The officer became suspicious that something was amiss and followed Berry’s car. About one-half mile from the store, he made an investigative stop. Although Berry told Connor that Graham was simply suffering from a “sugar reaction,” the officer ordered Berry and Graham to wait while he found out what, if anything, had happened at the convenience store. When Officer Connor returned to his patrol car to call for backup assistance, Graham got out of the car, ran around it twice, and finally sat down on the curb, where he passed out briefly.
In the ensuing confusion, a number of other Charlotte police officers arrived on the scene in response to Officer Connor’s request for backup. One of the officers rolled Graham over on the sidewalk and cuffed his hands tightly behind his back, ignoring Berry’s pleas to get him some sugar. Another officer said: “I’ve seen a lot of people with sugar diabetes that never acted like this. Ain’t nothing wrong with the M. F. but drunk. Lock the S. B. up.” App. 42. Several officers then lifted Graham up from behind, carried him over to Berry’s car, and placed him face down on its hood. Regaining consciousness, Graham asked the officers to check in his wallet for a diabetic decal that he carried. In response, one of the officers told him to “shut up” and shoved his face down against the hood of the car. Four officers grabbed Graham and threw him headfirst into the police car. A friend of Graham’s brought some orange juice to the car, but the officers refused to let him have it. Finally, Officer Connor received a report that Graham had done nothing wrong at the convenience store, and the officers drove him home and released him.
At some point during his encounter with the police, Graham sustained a broken foot, cuts on his wrists, a bruised forehead, and an injured shoulder; he also claims to have developed a loud ringing in his right ear that continues to this day.”
“This case requires us to decide what constitutional standard governs a free citizen’s claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of his person. We hold that such claims are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard” (Emphasis added).
Moreover, “With respect to a claim of excessive force, the same standard of reasonableness at the moment applies: “Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge’s chambers,” Johnson v. Glick, 481 F. 2d, at 1033, violates the Fourth Amendment. The calculus of reasonableness must embody 397*397 allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments — in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving — about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.”
UA_Big_Dummy on December 10 at 10:44 p.m.
And finally, “An officer’s evil intentions will not make a Fourth Amendment violation out of an objectively reasonable use of force; nor will an officer’s good intentions make an objectively unreasonable use of force constitutional. See Scott v. United States, supra, at 138, citing United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218 (1973).”
Well, as you can vividly see for yourselves with my assistance, the Supreme Court in 1989 recognizes the dynamic and rapidly evolving nature of police work, and even though it was ultimately discovered that Mr. Graham was not involved in any manner of criminal conduct or behavior that would subject his person to warrantless seizure, he didn’t prevail in his cause. Further note here that the policemen involved in the case resorted to using profane language while addressing Mr. Graham – another non-issue SR.
On a final note, I vehemently support our local law enforcement to include officials who are appointed and elected to their positions, but for your clarification, that shouldn’t lead to a presumption that my support is synonymous with blind allegiance.
greenlibertarian on December 10 at 11:15 p.m.
UaBigDummy is one sick puppy.
Shelala on December 10 at 11:44 p.m.
@green libertarian
Yup, but I see he has mastered “cut and paste” rather well and that tinfoil hat must be a big help too.
brianrbreen on December 11 at 9:08 a.m.
@UABigDummy
See you just demonstrated what a big dummy I am. I thought based on your posts regarding RCW 71 maybe the 1983 claim had an element dealing with Emergent or Preventative Detention of the mentally ill as well as an excessive force issue. I know how difficult those issues can be for law enforcement and how there have been a number of judgments against law enforcement agencies for not training officers properly in that regard. I know it might be a big waist of time for you but I did link an opinion from the 9th dealing with this issue I thought you might be interested in. It is one of many dealing with this issue so I picked a short non-published opinion. Just for your info, if you do decide to read it, Hawaii’s Emergent Detention Statue appears to be pretty similar to Washington State.
Let me reiterate that, I have no idea whether these officers did anything wrong, and believe it or not I do have a bit of understanding of Graham v. Connor perhaps not as good as yours, but at least a little. As I recall in the Thompson case many of the law enforcement supporters felt he was protect based on that case. I also have an understanding of just how difficult it is to deal with folks that have mental problems, perhaps even more difficult than dealing with the crooks so I thought I might also provide a link to IACP publication that makes a lot of what I feel are good suggestions for departments in dealing with these folks. It is pretty long though and might not be worth your time.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2010/11/19/06-16074.pdf
http://www.theiacp.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=JyoR%2FQBPIxA%3D&tabid=87