Lawsuit response: Joplin police officers used reasonable force in dealing with suicidal teen

Two Joplin police officers claim they were using reasonable force when they arrested a 15-year-old suspect January 23.

The suspect, referred to in U. S. District Court records as A. T. and his mother, Amanda Smith, claim the officers, Seth Lugenbell and Kyle Fallis, beat A. T. and choked him even though the Joplin Police Department had received a 911 call saying the boy was suicidal.

In the officers' response, which was filed today, they claim A. T. was not complying with their instructions and that their conduct "was justified under the circumstances then existing" and that they are protected by qualified immunity and the public duty doctrine.

The officers, who are represented by Randy R. Cowherd of the Springfield firm of Cowherd, Reade, Adair & Laney, LLC, deny all allegations except that they were Joplin Police Department officers at the time of the incident.

Lawsuit claim: Joplin police officer beat, choked suicidal 15-year-old

(From the response)

Defendants assert that all of their actions taken on March 20, 2023, with respect to the incident involving Plaintiffs, are protected from owing any duty towards or having any liability to Plaintiffs by reason of the doctrine of Official Immunity in that all of Defendants’ actions were discretionary, involving the exercise of judgment and applying their expertise, training and experience, and were done without bad faith or malice by the exercise of reasonable force in effecting the arrest of Plaintiffs and/or responding to Plaintiffs interfering with an investigation and resisting arrest.

Defendants asserts that all of their actions taken on March 20, 2023, with respect to the incident involving Plaintiffs, are protected from owing any duty towards or having any liability to Plaintiffs by reason of the Public Duty doctrine for the reasons set forth in paragraph 1 above.

Defendants assert that the sole cause of Plaintiffs’ claimed damage was the actions of the Plaintiffs in not complying with the instructions of officers, in interfering with an investigation, and in resisting arrest.

Defendants assert that their conduct, decisions and actions or inactions involved discretionary conduct and were objectively reasonable and justified under the circumstances then existing and were not in violation of clearly established law and therefore Defendants are protected from liability by reason of qualified immunity.

Defendants assert that the force used in effecting Plaintiffs’ arrest and/or in responding to Plaintiffs resisting such arrest was justified and de minimus in nature and thus not in violation of any constitutional rights of Plaintiffs.

For other affirmative answer and defense, Defendants state that Plaintiffs are not entitled to any punitive damage award against them for any one or more of the following reasons:

a. The standards by which Defendants’ conduct is to be determined as alleged by Plaintiffs are vague and wholly arbitrary and, as such, deny due process in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution;

b. The standards for determining the amount and/or subsequent imposition of punitive damages are vague, supply no notice to Defendants of the potential repercussions of his alleged conduct and are subject to the unbridled discretion of the fact finder, thereby denying due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution;

c. Plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages constitutes a request for and/or imposition of excessive fines in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution;

d. Plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution;

e. Plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages constitutes a denial of equal protection of the law in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution in that defendants’ wealth or net worth may be considered by a fact finder in determining the award of damages in a punitive damages award;

f. Plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages cannot protect Defendants against multiple punishments for the same alleged wrong, thereby denying due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution;

WHEREFORE, Officers Seth Lugenbell and Kyle Farris, Defendants, pray to be discharged from all claims asserted in the Complaint of Dausen Tosh and Quinlyn Tosh, Plaintiffs, for costs, expenses and attorney’s fees incurred herein, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate