Wrongful Death Civil Rights?

[tryingtoplease]

So ... your allegation is that the officer hit the couple?

Conflicting statements or not, unless the officer was detaining them at the time of the collision the nexus between his alleged initial contact and a collision quite some time later is nebulous at best.

EDIT: I think I may have misread your post about the car and the corner - I think you were refering to the van and not the police car. But, I still must be missing something - how is the officer responsible for a collision that occurred away from his location?

- Carl

Dear Carl,

That is one (or two) of the insunations. I'm sure Mo is still feeling the terrible loss of her daughter cut down tragically in the prime of her life. The trouble here lies, I believe, from Mo not being there personally. I used to race motorcycles (legally, at tracks) and (more dangerously) actually ride them on the street.

Mo, if you feel you really have something here, keep on it. However, you may also want to consider the fact that motorcycles are inherently dangerous. There's a reaon I quit riding on public streets. Other cars.

 

[bigdaddy6939]

Carl,

The officer began his chase at 1:09 A.M. from a dead stop in a restaurant parking lot where he was doing his end of shift paper work, about 1/8 of a mile from the intersection where all three bikes sat for one minute, discussing how cold it was and whether they should continue their ride or call it a night. All three drivers agreed to continue the ride and turned right at the intersection. The accident occurred at 1:10 A.M., 1/4 of the mile from the top of the hill. The officer reached the top of the hill at 1:10 A.M.. The officer then spent 25 minutes talking with the other riders about the airport and good places for them to ride their bikes, I know redundantly. The officer traveled 2.75 miles in less then one minute, passed the mini van and still had time to pull the first bike over to the side of the road and tell them to follow him. The other riders stated they never saw the officer until he reached the top of the hill, but had noticed the last bike in line disappeared from their site. The lead rider stated he was traveling 60 MPH, posted speed is 55 MPH, except for the curves in the road. Carl, given the fact that you are a seasoned supervisor, with the time line and other information, would it seem possible for all of this to have happened? I spoke with the officer’s lieutenant a few days after the accident, he at the time told me and the driver’s mother that he believed the kids were hit, he said his officer made some bad decisions, we asked for an internal investigation, the lieutenant said he would do one, which may take about two weeks and send us a copy. I spoke the lieutenant on a Friday afternoon two weeks later when he said I should receive a copy of the investigation the very next Monday. I waited several days after that Monday and finally called the lieutenant to ask about the report I hadn’t received, I was told at that time, by the lieutenant that I would not be receiving a report due to the officer’s privacy. The lieutenant had a different attitude with me. When first we spoke, he told me that he and his colleagues had discussed this senseless accident in great detail and even had cried over the loss of such good kids, but something changed during that two-week investigation. My daughters clothing and shoes were destroyed and disposed of, they were in good condition, as I spoke with the coroners office who had bagged her jeans, striped T-shirt, cheerleading sweatshirt, and white running shoes and said the belongings were supposed to accompany her body as there was no bio-hazard issue. We received one contact lense and a bellybutton ring. That may be all irrelevant legally, but personally disturbing. Would I be in trouble if I taped the conversations I had with the lieutenant or would they just be inadmissable? Thank you, Mo

 

[djohnson]

As sorry as I am for your loss, this just doesn't add up for me. It was an accident and I think the sooner you accept that, the better off you will be. As long as you keep trying to place blame and hurt others, you are keeping the pain alive for you. Where did you get the times above?

 

[CdwJava]

Carl, given the fact that you are a seasoned supervisor, with the time line and other information, would it seem possible for all of this to have happened?

First thing I would question is the source of the information regarding the times, and what is the fidge factor in those times. CAD entries are notoriously poor - clocks can be off from the officer's and others, entries can be made significantly AFTER events are called in (Dispatcher's delayed due to calls or other activity), and radio tape time stamps may not jive with anyone's clocks.

From your listed chronology, the other two motorcycles should have seen the crash that occurred only seconds behind them ... and when did the officer have a chance to stop anyone or have them follow him?

I don't see a nexus between the officer and the accident. This nexus HAS to be shown before you will have a chance to hold him or his agency accountable.

I spoke with the officer’s lieutenant a few days after the accident, he at the time told me and the driver’s mother that he believed the kids were hit, he said his officer made some bad decisions, we asked for an internal investigation, the lieutenant said he would do one, which may take about two weeks and send us a copy.

Wow! In my state you would never see a copy of the internal investigation as a matter of law. You could be notified of the determination, but never recieve a copy. I thought that Oregon operated under similar guidelines as CA in this regard.

I was told at that time, by the lieutenant that I would not be receiving a report due to the officer’s privacy.

Ah! I guess they do. The Lieutenant should never have told you that you could receive a copy. He is not apparently well versed in the law in this regard.

Would I be in trouble if I taped the conversations I had with the lieutenant or would they just be inadmissable? Thank you, Mo

It could potentially be a violation of Oregon law. I wouldn't tape any conversations with him unless you tell him you are taping the conversation up front. Better yet, talk to your attorney prior to taping anything.

Again, I have to revisit the nexus ...

I must be missing something because I just don't see how the officer is responsible for the crash. If there was a crash between a mini-van and the motorcycle, why is it not the mini-van driver's fault? Why is it the fault of an officer that may or may not have stopped them a minute or several minutes earlier? Maybe I'm being thick-headed, but I'm still not seeing the nexus.

- Carl

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Carl,

The officer began his chase at 1:09 A.M. from a dead stop in a restaurant parking lot where he was doing his end of shift paper work, about 1/8 of a mile from the intersection where all three bikes sat for one minute, discussing how cold it was and whether they should continue their ride or call it a night. All three drivers agreed to continue the ride and turned right at the intersection. The accident occurred at 1:10 A.M., 1/4 of the mile from the top of the hill. The officer reached the top of the hill at 1:10 A.M.. The officer then spent 25 minutes talking with the other riders about the airport and good places for them to ride their bikes, I know redundantly. The officer traveled 2.75 miles in less then one minute, passed the mini van and still had time to pull the first bike over to the side of the road and tell them to follow him. The other riders stated they never saw the officer until he reached the top of the hill, but had noticed the last bike in line disappeared from their site. The lead rider stated he was traveling 60 MPH, posted speed is 55 MPH, except for the curves in the road. Carl, given the fact that you are a seasoned supervisor, with the time line and other information, would it seem possible for all of this to have happened? I spoke with the officer’s lieutenant a few days after the accident, he at the time told me and the driver’s mother that he believed the kids were hit, he said his officer made some bad decisions, we asked for an internal investigation, the lieutenant said he would do one, which may take about two weeks and send us a copy. I spoke the lieutenant on a Friday afternoon two weeks later when he said I should receive a copy of the investigation the very next Monday. I waited several days after that Monday and finally called the lieutenant to ask about the report I hadn’t received, I was told at that time, by the lieutenant that I would not be receiving a report due to the officer’s privacy. The lieutenant had a different attitude with me. When first we spoke, he told me that he and his colleagues had discussed this senseless accident in great detail and even had cried over the loss of such good kids, but something changed during that two-week investigation. My daughters clothing and shoes were destroyed and disposed of, they were in good condition, as I spoke with the coroners office who had bagged her jeans, striped T-shirt, cheerleading sweatshirt, and white running shoes and said the belongings were supposed to accompany her body as there was no bio-hazard issue. We received one contact lense and a bellybutton ring. That may be all irrelevant legally, but personally disturbing. Would I be in trouble if I taped the conversations I had with the lieutenant or would they just be inadmissable? Thank you, Mo

Insofar as recording conversations, Washington is a two party state, meaning both parties have to consent to recording the conversation. If the conversations were recorded at the police department, then they are discoverable and could be used as evidence. If you havent recorded conversations or can't get declarations from police department witnesses, there is an exception to the 2 party consent law in Washington. Oregon is a one party state. I give both states in case this involves access on both states. Remember phone records can be subponeaed even for local calls. So it is very important where the call was recorded.

Washington requires the consent of all parties. Some companies manage to work around that by going to the Indian reservations or any federally owned property to make the call (military base etc.)- Federal law is a one party consent.

You might want to subponea the evidence (personal effects) not returned. Do you know if they were destroyed or kept as evidence? I am not surprised that they did not provide you a copy of the IA investigation, however it may be subponeaed.

There are some gaps in the evidence, is there a chronology anywhere?

 

[djohnson]

The officer traveled 2.75 miles in less then one minute, passed the mini van and still had time to pull the first bike over to the side of the road and tell them to follow him. The other riders stated they never saw the officer until he reached the top of the hill, but had noticed the last bike in line disappeared from their site. The lead rider stated he was traveling 60 MPH, posted speed is 55 MPH,



***You should also realize this doesn't jive either. If they were going 60 mph, and he was going 120 as you claim, he would have caught up with them in .5 of a mile. Your are just telling your side. These kids were obviously doing something to draw his attention, they were obviously speeding, if as you say he was. That would put the accident very close to where the others were at. The other motorcycle would have seen the police car if he hit it. In your need for revenge, you are only hurting yourself more.

 

[CdwJava]

Washington requires the consent of all parties. Some companies manage to work around that by going to the Indian reservations or any federally owned property to make the call (military base etc.)- Federal law is a one party consent.

You might want to subponea the evidence (personal effects) not returned. Do you know if they were destroyed or kept as evidence? I am not surprised that they did not provide you a copy of the IA investigation, however it may be subponeaed.

Rmet, the OP is from Oregon as I recall.

Also, the internal investigation cannot be simply subpoenaed, the process is a tad more complex than that, I believe. Oregon procedure mirrors California's and unless the suit is filed in federal court (which requires something more than simple negligence which appears to be the allegation here) the IA investigation is not going to be obtained very easily at all.

- Carl

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Rmet, the OP is from Oregon as I recall.

Also, the internal investigation cannot be simply subpoenaed, the process is a tad more complex than that, I believe. Oregon procedure mirrors California's and unless the suit is filed in federal court (which requires something more than simple negligence which appears to be the allegation here) the IA investigation is not going to be obtained very easily at all.

- Carl

You are correct, I realized that and went back and edited it, I believe it occured on the border of Washington/ Multnomah Counties which is also on the Washington/Oregon border, Ore being a 1 party state and Washington being a 2 party state, both states have Federal property and Indian reservations which would be one party for recording. I did see a reference to Oregon having some limitations on recording as well.

There are some gaps in OP's story. I got that what attracted the officer's attention was the noise from the motorcycles, whether that be illegal levels or the misfiring from the bike the deceased riders were operating, initially as opposed to speed.

One can only guess what went on as they decided to continue their ride, why would someone with trouble with their bike continue for a pleasure ride at 1am with it backfiring defies comprehension, a reasonable person would head home, so I suspect that the other riders stories leave out some facts. So it is possible that the Hillsboro police officer might very easily have to speed to catch them, if the speed limit was 55 mph? If so, then wouldn't he have to have a reason to pursue rather than to shoot the breeze? So the officer is leaving something out too. Why would he ask someone to follow him if he knew their bike's operation was compromised and speed off, to catch the others if there wasn't a reason to cite, or did he tell them to go home and thus the reason they turned around and got hit? He didn't cite anyone apparently, he also not only left the city's jurisdiction but also the county jurisdiction as the two counties are next to each other. There are questions unanswered and facts that don't add up.

I agree that the IA report may be difficult to obtain even with a subponea, but that will be a start.

 

[CdwJava]

The apparent discrepencies in the story I can live with. Heck, up until the crash this was not likely a big deal even to the officer so there is not likely a whole lot of clear detail or much of a report to write. And report written later was in response to interrogatories by the family or others. If he did not put out the initial stop, then he really wasn't stressing too much over the whole thing. And if the officer was near the end of shift he may have been just wanting to catch up to the source of noise and/or speed and tell them to fix their bikes or slow down.

I am still curious how the officer can be responsible for the collision. Heck, even if he blatantly lied and was looking for a date or for tips on how to cherry out his own bike, it still doesn't make him responsible for the collision.

EDIT: Oh, and if OR law is similar to CA law, it is doubtful that anyone will get that IA report.

- Carl

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Officer about to go off duty hears bikes with one backfiring after 1 am.
Officer takes off after the bikes and catches up to the misfiring bike because it is lagging behind and the other bikers don't notice when the officer pulls them over.
Officer tells the couple to go home, because the bike is not safe to drive and misfiring, disturbing the peace and he'll let their friends know, he doesn't call it in because he told them to do home, he doesn't ask where that is, he doesn't make sure they safely enter the roadway or make the turn safley because he takes off after the other bikes. They don't follow him because they can't manage the slope of the hill and so turn around and head back to Hillsboro because they can manage going downhill. He takes off to catch up to the other bikes for what ever reason. He crosses county lines and doesn't call it in and then shoots the breeze with the other bikers, he doesn't say, "Where's your friends, I told them to follow me", he's not issuing a citation for speeding or noise, no he continues his gab fest with the bikers until he hears the call re the accident sometime after the accident. It is only after the accident, that he comes up with the story about asking them to follow him to catch up with the others, the mini-van is a mystery?

 

[CdwJava]

Still no nexus to hold the officer responsible. His prior contact alone is not sufficient. A special relationship would have to be established, and this would generally consist of an ordered detention that the subjects acquiesced to, or, that they were obeying some other detention or custodial instruction.

Had they been following behind him at his direction and were struck while trying to keep up with the officer as instructed, then I can see some measure of liability ... not necessarily total liability as that would depend upon the actions of the other parties (the van and the motorcycle). But there would at least be a nebulous act to tie the events together.

- Carl

 

[rmet4nzkx]

That is the question, it appears that there was no detention and the kids were sent home, thus as you say, no nexus, but then why lie later and claim that he told them to follow him, without anything to support it, then it could be argued that the nexus was inferred. There does seem to be some amount of coverup, there are just too many missing facts.

 

[CdwJava]

That is the question, it appears that there was no detention and the kids were sent home, thus as you say, no nexus, but then why lie later and claim that he told them to follow him, without anything to support it, then it could be argued that the nexus was inferred. There does seem to be some amount of coverup, there are just too many missing facts.

We don't know that there WAS a lie. All because the facts as layed out to us here on this forum don't seem to make sense does not mean that they do not. And even if there are some discrepencies it does not mean that there is a lie or a coverup.

The officer could have stopped people without radioing it in. It's dumb from a safety perspective, but it happens a lot. He could even have been jaw-jacking with people on the hill ... and maybe even told the kids to follow him or go home. None of it means that anyone lied about anything. And times are easily messed up. My watch does not necessarily match the times of our Dispatch CAD system, and the dispatcher may not enter the time of an activity in the instant it is received so that also leaves a discrepency in time.

If the officer was trying to cover it up he would never have admitted to telling them to follow him. In fact, we don't know he said that. He may have told the other two motorcyclists that he told the couple to follow him, or they reported that was what the officer told them he said to the couple ... the officer may not have said that at all. Who knows?

Given what little we know there is not enough to conclude that anyone lied. Nor does there appear to be ANY relationship that ties the officer to any responsibility for the collision. If it's there, I don't see it.

One key is that there appears to be no attorney willing to jump on the case. If this was clearly negligence on the part of the officer, attorneys would be lining up as it would be good "go away" money if nothing else. Even if a suit couldn't win in court, something like this would be good for a considerable payoff if the officer's actions could be tied to the crash somehow. Since there does not appear to be a parade of attorneys willing to take it, I suspect that it is the parent's understandable desire to assign blame that leads to the conclusion the officer was somehow responsible.

So far, I see the responsibility laying with the driver of the minivan or the couple on the motorcycle (depending on how the accident occurred).

- Carl

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Without some key pieces of evidence, it will be difficult for an attorney to take on the case.

I know of a case that was or should have been open and shut re police negligence.

Two towns with contiguious borders and rivalry between them. A spurned boyfriend (town A) vows to get even with his exgirlfriends new bf in (Town B) at an upcomming birthday party hosted in the home of a retired police officer from Town B. The police are informed and the word is out that there is going to be trouble, this is not gang related and while assured that the retired police officer will be present for the party and safe, the youth's planning to attend are prepared to leave if there is trouble and the police have several cars wait for the party to break up not to protect the youths but instead to cite for drunken driving and MIP.

Hostile words are exchanged between ex and new bf and the party breaks up and they begin to leave before any trouble breaks up. One of the youths notices that one of their companions was seaprated from them on the way to the car so he goes back to look for him, none of these are ex or new bf. Ex bf and his friends grab a shovel from the gargage and beat the returining youth with the shovel. His older brother, a local sports star, see's his brother being beaten also knows the attackers and tells them to get off his little brother. They turn on him and one of the attackers, not the ex bf, stabs the older brother once in the chest, drops the knife and runs. The police witness all this and grab the stabing attacker take the knife and put him in the back seat of the cruiser and the knife in the front seat, but fail to lock the door. They watch the stabbed youth as he lay on the ground, attempt no first aid and someone trained in first comes to aid the victims, the police then call the ambulance and the victim is taken to the hospital. The person giving first aid, the brother attacked with the shovel and a friend follow the ambulance to the hospital which is about 10 miles away. There are two hospitals off the same exit, one county, one HMO hospital, this exit was going west, there was a new exit for the same street prior to the old exit going east. Apparently the ambulance drivers took the wrong exit and ended up on the wrong side of the freeway, the driver following them had to get their attention so they could get to the hospital. The victim bleed to death as the aorta was severed.

Meanwhile back at the scene, the police officers realize, that in the confusion, the suspect, has escaped from the backseat of the cruiser and the knife is gone as well. None of the youths from town A who remain, will admit who the stabber was and the victim who knew, is dead. The community was outraged because this happened in front of police who watched it happen and let the perp and evidence go. For the next year, when ever one of the principle witnesses or their families vehicles were spotted by the police, they were stopped. Eventually there were two lawsuits one against the police for negligence and one against the perp. Essentially both cases were lost because the police lost the suspect and the evidence. This is based on knowledge of the facts not supposition.

It is cases like this that make a lawsuit against the police difficult to prosecute.

 

[CdwJava]

In CA I don't think that a lawsuit could even be brought against the police for losing the suspect and the evidence in the situation you describe. Incompetence or dumb (bad) luck is not generally actionable, so I don't think in this state such a suit against the police would even get to court - at least not for the knife and the escaping suspect.

And I have had mixed opinions on failure to render aid. Unless the failure to render first aid resulted in the death, I don't think that would be actionable either. But, this might depend a grat deal on the laws of the particular state involved. I know that if there were lots of free-flowing blood, unless I had access to adequate gloves and necessary protection, I wouldn't be too inclined to risk disease and God knows what else by slapping my unrpotected hand over a stranger's wound.

As you said, civil cases agaisnt the police - or any government entity - are difficult. Yet it doesn't prevent cities and counties in California from literally paying out MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of dollars each year in "go away" settlements.

- Carl