Georgia Trial Lawyer Blog

On Friday, the Georgia Bureau of investigation filed a report with the Chatham County District Attorney’s Office concerning the tasing of an autistic teenager. The report’s findings may determine whether the officers involved face criminal charges for using Taser against the teen.

WTOC has the story.

Clifford Grevemberg and his brother went to order food at the Rock House Bar and Grill after attending Tybee Island’s Beach Bum Parade on May 21. Clifford, who is 18 years old, suffers from autism. Because Clifford was under 21, he was forced to wait outside the grill while his brother ordered food inside. Tybee officers say they approached Clifford while he was waiting outside and asked to see his ID. At some point during the encounter, Clifford was forced to the ground and tased. According to police reports, officers believed that Clifford was intoxicated although his family denies that claim.

Jason Buelterman, Tybee Island’s mayor, asked the GBI to investigate the matter to determine if police violated the law. Since the tasing, Police Chief James Price and a supervisor have been suspended. In addition, three officers who were involved in the altercation have resigned.

The Chatham County District Attorney’s Office must now decide whether it will bring criminal charges against the officers for using excessive force. It is currently unclear as to when the DA’s Office will announce its decision.

In response to the incident, Clifford’s family has filed suit against the city and the officers involved in the tasing.

While Tasers can be a useful and non-lethal tool for law enforcement, they are all too often used excessively, improperly or on persons with sensitive medical conditions. Victims of such police abuse can file suit against the police department and individual officers in an effort to hold the police accountable and to recoup any damages that were sustained from psychological or physical injuries.

Mohawk Industries, a Georgia business which makes carpet and flooring, recently agreed to settle a labor lawsuit for $18 million. The suit alleged RICO violations involving the regular hiring of illegal immigrants. The suit was brought by current and former employees who complained that the company’s hiring practices resulted in lower wages for employees lawfully in the country.

Lawyers in the case predict that similar RICO lawsuits will soon be filed in Georgia as well as in other states with high immigration rates.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

What made the Mohawk lawsuit unique is how the suit was brought. The employees alleged violations under the Georgia and federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization act which is commonly referred to as RICO. RICO was originally used by federal authorities to prosecute organized crime. Today, however, the use of RICO has expanded to labor lawsuits involving large corporations. This case expanded its use even further to include labor suits in which a corporation has hired illegal aliens.

Corporations involved in industries such as poultry processing, manufacturing, agriculture, carpet and flooring, and other industries which attract immigrants are expected to see the largest increase in similar RICO lawsuits. This may be especially true for businesses in Georgia, since many of the areas outside of metro-Atlanta are home to these types of industries.

To bring a RICO suit against a corporation in Georgia, a plaintiff generally needs to show that the corporation engaged in a pattern of unlawful conduct. In the Mohawk case, the pattern was the alleged consistent hiring of illegal immigrants. If successful, plaintiffs in a RICO lawsuit are entitled to three times the actual damages sustained. A plaintiff may also be entitled to punitive damages in order to punish and to deter the corporation from committing crimes in the future.

Our firm has successfully handled several RICO lawsuits in which a corporation repeatedly violated the law in order to maximize profits. In our experience, the filing of a RICO lawsuit is often the only way to hold such a corporation responsible for the harm that it has caused. In many cases, a RICO lawsuit will also prevent future abuses of employees and consumers.

The Dunwoody Police Department is currently investigating how a suspected shoplifter died after being detained by Dunwoody Wal-Mart employees this afternoon. The suspected shoplifter, Marty Jones, apparently succumbed after several people pinned him to the ground in order to prevent him from fleeing the store.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

The incident occurred around lunchtime at the Wal-Mart on Ashford Dunwoody Road. According to authorities, a Wal-Mart loss prevention officer initially grabbed Mr. Jones after suspecting him of shoplifting. A shopper then apparently intervened which led to an altercation. From that point, a “pile-up” ensured in which an undisclosed number of people attempted to pin Mr. Jones to the ground.

When police arrived at 1 p.m., Mr. Jones was receiving CPR from two bystanders. He was then transported to Northside Hospital where he was pronounced dead. Authorities hope that an autopsy will shed more light on the injuries that Mr. Jones sustained.

Our personal injury attorneys have helped several clients recover significant monetary damages after they were wrongfully detained or assaulted by private security employees. It is important for customers who have been assaulted by store employees to understand that a store, such as Wal-Mart, can detain a customer it reasonably suspects of shoplifting. However, under Georgia law, a store may generally only detain a suspected shoplifter in a manner and for a length of time that is reasonable. In our experience, detention by store security that results in grave bodily injury or death is almost never reasonable, and in those cases, the injured customer or the customer’s family may be able to recover a significant amount of money from the business and its employees.

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently reversed the grant of summary judgment to an Atlanta police officer on the claims of false arrest and malicious prosecution. The court ruled that a material issue of fact existed as to whether actual malice was involved and whether there was probable cause.

In Jones v. Warner, the plaintiff, Chastity Jones, was eating at a KFC in downtown Atlanta with two friends when she decided that she wanted to visit Atlantic Station. Jones noticed a police van outside in which Officer Adriane Warner was sitting. Jones walked to the van and asked Warner for directions to Atlantic Station while Warner was on the radio. Warner failed to respond and Jones asked for directions a second time. Warner raised her finger instructing Jones to wait. Warner then stated “17th Street” and pointed to the right. Jones asked, “Where is that?” to which Warner responded, “Can’t you see I am on my radio?” While walking back to the restaurant, Jones stated, “You didn’t have to be so rude about it.”

Warner followed Jones into the KFC and told her that she needed to speak with her. Jones apologized for disturbing the radio call and turned to walk to her table. Warner then stated, “Don’t walk away from me when I’m talking to you.” At that time, Warner pulled Jones out of the KFC and held her arm to the wall. Jones again apologized. Warner then put Jones in handcuffs and asked for an ID. Jones stated she didn’t have an ID but later found it on her person. At the precinct, Warner discovered that Jones had a warrant for failure to appear. Jones was then charged with violating the Atlanta City ordinance for disorderly conduct. The ordinance, which was later changed, prohibited the interference “by acts of physical obstruction, [with] another’s pursuit of a lawful occupation.” The Solicitor eventually moved to dismiss the charges which the municipal court granted.

Jones then sued for false arrest and malicious prosecution. Warner testified that Jones stated “damn officers” as she walked back to the KFC, and that once inside she cursed in front of children which gave her probable cause to arrest. However, Warner never mentioned any cursing in her initial report and even stated in her deposition that she had no reasonable grounds for believing a crime had been committed prior to Jones’ re-entry into the KFC. Furthermore, one of Jones’ friends testified that she was calm and never cursed. Nonetheless, the trial court granted Warner’s motions for summary judgment.

False arrest arises when an arrest occurs without probable cause and when made maliciously. A lack of probable cause exists when a reasonable man would believe that the officer had no grounds for proceeding with the arrest except out of a desire to injure the arrestee. The additional element of malice may be inferred from a total lack of probable cause. Because Warner could not provide any undisputed evidence showing that the arrest for disorderly conduct was justified, the appellate court ruled that the trial court should have allowed a jury to decide the question.

Moreover, the court ruled that the claim for malicious prosecution should have also reached the jury. Whether malicious prosecution exists depends on whether the facts, as they existed at the time of instituting the prosecution, were such as to lead a person of ordinary caution to entertain a belief that the accused was guilty of the offense charged. If probable cause existed, the malicious prosecution claim will fail. Since a question of fact remains as to whether there was probable cause and a prosecution had been initiated, the appellate court held that summary judgment was improper.

Our victims’ rights attorneys have successfully represented several clients who have fallen victim to abusive police practices. In our experience, false arrest and malicious prosecution are not uncommon occurrences and many victims fail to exercise their rights under Georgia and federal laws which are designed to protect and compensate those who have been wrongfully arrested or prosecuted. While it can often be a difficult task to get such a case to the jury stage, juries can and do award significant monetary damages in such cases. It is our hope that cases like this one will allow more victims to exercise their rights and eventually prevent future abusive police practices.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon, Madison and Savannah. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims, people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices, or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

On the night of September 10, nearly 50 officers of the Atlanta Police Department conducted a warrantless raid on the Atlanta Eagle, a local bar, in which the occupants were forced to the floor, searched and had their driver’s licenses seized while police ran background checks. Twenty of the people forced to the ground filed suit in federal court on Tuesday alleging federal civil rights violations and demanding a change in police department policy.

WABE News has the story.

According to the complaint, several undercover police officers were at the bar shortly before the raid occurred. Sometime after 11:00 PM the undercover officers yelled for everyone to “hit the floor” without identifying themselves as officers. Soon thereafter Atlanta police and members of the Red Dog Unit, a drug taskforce dressed in SWAT gear, rushed into the bar without verbally identifying themselves as officers. Witnesses say officers shoved some patrons to the ground, pressed boots on their backs, used handcuffs and even kicked some patrons for no legitimate reason. The patrons were then detained and searched. Police forcefully took identifying information from the patrons in order to determine if anyone had outstanding warrants. Some patrons were forced to lie in broken glass and not allowed to move for up to two hours. Officers also allegedly kicked down a door, entered a private residence, refused to answer questions about their presence and used anti-gay slurs during the raid.

Police say they conducted the warrantless raid after observing illegal sexual conduct on prior visits. However, no patrons were arrested during the raid and only eight employees were cited for code violations. Plaintiffs argue that police violated their rights by seizing, searching and running background checks on them. Under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, police generally need to have a particularized reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that an individual is involved in criminal activity before that person can be seized and searched.

Moreover, Police Chief Richard Pennington publicly announced that it was the department’s policy to have patrons lie on the floor, searched, and have their identifications taken during raids.

Many attorneys have called such a policy a clear violation of constitutional rights. WABE legal analyst Page Pate says that the Police Chief’s statements bolster the plaintiffs’ case. Pate explained that the statements show that the city has a long history of using these tactics, and that the city will have a hard time disowning the policy when it comes time to defend itself against the plaintiffs’ lawsuit.

The complaint lists the City of Atlanta, the Atlanta Police Department and 45 officers as defendants. Plaintiffs are suing primarily under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which allows individuals who have been deprived of constitutional rights by state actors to bring suit against them in federal court. Specifically, plaintiffs allege violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments which guarantee the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures as well as the First and Fourteenth Amendments which guarantee the right of free speech. The complaint further alleges the same violations under the Georgia Constitution. Plaintiffs then go on to claim false imprisonment, assault, battery and trespass.

The Lambda Legal Defense Fund, the Southern Center for Human Rights and attorney Dan Grossman represent the plaintiffs. They are not only asking for monetary damages, including punitive damages, but for a change in the police department’s policy to ensure that the city does not infringe upon constitutional rights in the future.

Our victims’ rights attorneys have also successfully represented several citizens who have fallen victim to abusive police practices. Police brutality or abuse can come in many shapes or forms including excessive use of force, physical attacks, verbal threats, intimidation or false arrest. In our experience, police departments often have unofficial or official policies which violate constitutional rights guaranteed to all citizens. A good victims’ rights attorney will expose these illegal policies by suing the responsible police department, government entity and officers under various federal and state laws designed to protect citizens from police abuse. This will help to prevent future abuses and allow the victims to recover monetary damages.

The Court of Appeals of Georgia recently determined that DeKalb County could be held liable for injuries that a motorist sustained during a high-speed police chase, since there were factual issues as to whether the pursuing officer recklessly disregarded policies of the DeKalb County Police Department.

In Rahmaan v. DeKalb, Rahmaan, the plaintiff, stated that she was stopped at a red light at a four-way intersection around 10:00pm in the summer of 2005. When the light turned green, she heard loud sirens and stayed where she was. She then saw a Cadillac moving at a high rate of speed with a police car behind it. Rahmaan claims the police car intentionally rammed the back side of the fleeing Cadillac which is known as a PIT maneuver. This caused the Cadillac to fishtail into her vehicle. Rahmaan says she heard the officer get out of his car and say “we got him.” She also claims that people were walking on the sidewalk and that children were playing nearby when the wreck occurred. The officer testified that he did not perform a PIT maneuver, but rather, he was trying to block the intersection so innocent motorists could not enter. At that point, the officer claims the suspect’s car bounced off the police cruiser and into Rahmaan’s vehicle.

Under Georgia law, a police officer’s pursuit of a fleeing suspect cannot be the proximate cause of any injuries unless the officer acted with reckless disregard for proper law enforcement procedures in the officer’s decision to initiate or continue the pursuit. The trial court granted summary judgment for DeKalb, since it believed there was no evidence that the officer acted in reckless disregard. Yet, DeKalb County has a policy that forbids physical contact between vehicles except as required at roadblocks, and that roadblocks cannot be used when innocent persons would be endangered. Under Rahmaan’s version, the officer intentionally struck the fleeing suspect’s vehicle under circumstances not allowed by the county. Thus, the court reversed summary judgment and allowed her suit for injuries to go forward.

Our personal injury attorneys have successfully represented several clients who have been injured by reckless police officers. It is an unfortunate reality that many innocent lives are taken every year by high speed chases in which officers simply disregard proper police procedure. When an injury or death does occur in a police chase, the person or family that was harmed may be entitled to significant monetary damages for injuries. However, it is important to be conscious of the fact that an ante-litem notice may need to be filed very soon after an accident involving a police chase occurs. If an injured party fails to promptly file such a notice, he or she may waive any right to sue for monetary damages.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims, people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices, or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

The manufacturer of the most common brand of electroshock gun, Taser International, issued a warning last week for officers to stop stunning people in the chest. The company warns that shooting someone in the chest may cause an “adverse cardiac event.”

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

The warning came in the form of a training bulletin to all law enforcement officers that carry the company’s stun guns. Instead of shooting someone in the chest, face or neck, Taser International recommends shocking a person in the back, abdomen or thigh. The warning comes after numerous law enforcement agencies have faced law suits due to the device’s ability to cause heart attacks.

Taser International’s product delivers 50,000 volts to a victim’s body for the purpose of incapacitation. Normally, such a shock will incapacitate a suspect for about five seconds without causing permanent injury. However, more than 400 people have died after being shocked with a Taser since 2001. Of those deaths, medical examiners have found that Tasers contributed to more than 30. It is unclear how many more deaths may have been caused by Tasers.

Three such deaths happened in the Gwinnett County jail after deputies shocked inmates that they say were combative. In two of those cases, the cause of death was ruled to be cardiac arrest, however, the cause of the heart attacks were not determined.

The latest warning has not deterred officers in the Atlanta area from carrying Tasers, but many police departments pledge to retrain their officers including Atlanta, Gwinnett and Clayton. Cobb County has already implemented the recommendations with its officers. Fulton County Police say they are currently reviewing the warnings, and the DeKalb County Sheriff’s Office has stated that it is aware of the recommendations.

Our personal injury attorneys have reviewed several Taser cases. While Tasers may represent a non-lethal way for officers to subdue a suspect, they are often used improperly, excessively or on persons with underlying medical conditions. As this story highlights, the resulting medical complications can lead to permanent damage and even death.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims, people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices, or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

DeKalb County, Georgia was facing a lawsuit by a homeless man who complained that a police officer kicked him out of the county and then beat him. The county settled the case last week for $165,000.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

The incident happened five years ago when Robert Williams was found sleeping behind a restaurant on Halloween by Officer Ronald Jones. Williams asked to be arrested in order to find warmth and food, but instead, the officer drove Williams to Rockdale County and ordered him out of the car. Williams refused and a fight ensued which left both men badly beaten. Williams was then arrested on false charges. Jones initially lied to authorities by saying that Williams had placed him in the trunk of the vehicle and drove him across county lines at gunpoint. Eventually, authorities learned the truth, and Jones was charged with kidnapping, aggravated assault and violating his oath of office.

According to some former officers, the practice of transporting a drunk or bothersome vagrant across county lines was an unofficial policy for years, since it was easier than executing an arrest. When an officer makes an arrest, he has to spend time booking the offender into jail, but because driving the offender across County lines saved time, many police supervisors simply turned a blind eye to the practice. In fact, Atlanta officials have accused DeKalb and other counties of dumping vagrants into the city for years. The practice went largely undetected until the fight between Williams and Jones occurred.

Williams and his attorney, Mike Puglise, argued that kicking Williams out of DeKalb County, beating him and filing false charges against him all violated his civil rights. DeKalb decided to settle the case before it proceeded to trial. The hope is that this case will shed light on the widespread problem and cause police supervisors to crack down on the practice.

Our victims’ rights attorneys have successfully represented several clients who have been abused and brutalized by police officers. Police abuse or brutality covers a wide range of actions including physical attacks, verbal threats, excessive use of force, false arrest, sexual abuse and intimidation. As seen in this case, some unofficial police policies or customs are often kept from public view. A good victims’ rights attorney will expose these practices by filing suit against the officer and department under various state and federal laws which are designed to help the victims of police abuse. Doing so will ensure that the illegal practices stop and that the victim receives the maximum amount of monetary damages allowed by law.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims, people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices, or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.

The Georgia Supreme Court recently had to determine if the state is immune from liability when a police officer negligently strikes a vehicle while performing official duties. A divided Court ruled that the state was not immune to such a suit.

In Georgia Dept. of Public Safety v. Davis, the plaintiff, Davis, was injured by a police vehicle while driving her mail carrier pick-up truck. The state trooper was traveling behind Davis’ truck while running radar on vehicles approaching from the other lane. It is a technique known as blocking. Davis stopped in order to make a left turn; however, the trooper was not able to stop in time and collided with Davis’ truck. Davis was injured as a result of the accident, and she brought a suit for damages against the Department of Public Safety. The Department moved to dismiss the suit arguing that the state legislature did not intend to waive sovereign immunity for this type of incident. The trial court and the Court of Appeals disagreed, and the case was then appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court.

The Department leaned on a statute which reads: “The state shall have no liability for losses resulting from. . . the failure to provide, or the method of providing, law enforcement, police, or fire protection. . .” The Court adopted a test from Texas and West Virginia which asks if the losses resulted from the making or implementation of a policy decision. Thus, the state is immune if the injury is caused during the implementation of a policy that is defective. However, the state is not immune where its employee implements a non-defective policy in a negligent manner.

The Court reasoned that it is the policy of the Department of Public Safety to apprehend speeders. However, it is not policy for an officer to negligently strike a vehicle while apprehending speeders. Furthermore, a review board found that the trooper did not operate his car in a manner consistent with policy and training. Since the trooper’s negligence was not a part of any policy, the state can be held liable for injuries caused by the negligence.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims and people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine. Our firm is also listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers by Martindale-Hubbell.