As the Joplin Police Department waits to see if two of its officers will face civil rights charges in connection with the handcuffing and detention of an elementary school student, preparations for a trial involving another alleged civil rights violation have been flying under the radar.
The trial for the lawsuit filed by James Keener, Joplin, against Officer James Kelly is scheduled to begin Aug. 16 in U. S. District Court in Springfield. Keener claims Kelly violated his civil rights during a drunk driving arrest.
The incident occurred at approximately 1:30 p.m. April 1, 2000, according to court records. Keener was driving at 30th and Main when "a Joplin police officer began following (him) without (his) knowledge." Keener drove the remaining two and a half blocks to his home, pulled into the driveway and parked his car in the carport. He turned off the car and went into his house through the rear door.
Shortly afterward, Officer Kelly "entered the residence and began assaulting plaintiff." It wasn't long before other officers arrived and joined in, the complaint said. The other officers are listed as "John Does" in the complaint. The Joplin Police Department was initially listed in the complaint but the judge dismissed the department as a defendant.
Keener was sprayed with Mace "injuring his face and eyes and damaging the carpeting in (his) residence so that it had to be replaced."
The door to Keener's house was also damaged, the complaint said, as well as a personal computer, glassware and other personal property. The police had no arrest warrant and no search warrant, facts which have been stipulated by both sides.
After Keener was subdued, he was handcuffed and taken to the Municipal Jail, where he was placed in a cell "with no running water or toilet facilities for a period of over eight-and-one-half hours while his wife tried to post a bail bond for him," according to the complaint.
Keener says the officers' actions were a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure and "unlawful and unreasonable use of force incident to an arrest."
Keener is asking for compensation for his injuries and for his "emotional distress," damages for his property and punitive damages.
In his response, Kelly said he began following Keener because of his "erratic driving" and was using his emergency lights. "Plaintiff failed and refused to stop." Any injuries Keener suffered, the response said, "were brought on by plaintiff's resisting arrest, becoming combative and his drunken condition."
An exhibit list filed today by the defense indicates evidence presented will include the DWI ticket, an April 1, 2000 mug shot of Keener, his Missouri and Kansas rap sheets, the use of force report, the alcohol influence report and the dispatch log.
The two sides have wrangled over what will be allowed to be presented as evidence. The defense filed a motion today in U. S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri asking that all testimony about Keener's treatment at the jail should be disallowed because "it is irrelevant and immaterial to any of the issues which will be submitted to the jury," and "defendant would be highly prejudiced because he has not designated any witnesses from the jail to testify as to the conditions or treatment."
Kelly's lawyer, Karl Blanchard, is also asking that all evidence about how Keener's case turned out be excluded. He was found not guilty at trial. "The issues in this case center on whether or not Officer Kelly had a reasonable suspicion to attempt to make a traffic stop of plaintiff on April 1, 2000, and whether or not his actions affecting the arrest of plaintiff were within the constitutional boundaries of the Fourth Amendment. It is not necessary for the defendant to prove that plaintiff was guilty of the charges, whether he was ultimately acquitted is irrelevant to the issues to be submitted to the jury and further is highly prejudicial."
No comments:
Post a Comment