home

D.C. Settles With Wrongfully Incarcerated Homeless Man

By Last Night in Little Rock, Section Misconduct
Posted on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:44:47 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

posted by Last Night in Little Rock

The District of Columbia arrested a deaf, mute homeless man and detained him in mental institutions for two years, mistakenly believing he was mentally ill. He wasn't. The City yesterday has settled with him for $1M plus attorney's fees.

Some of you might remember the arrest and handcuffing of a twelve year old girl for eating "a single french fry" on a Metrorail platform in violation of the "zero tolerance" no-food policy. Stupid, yes; unconstitutional, no. According to Circuit Judge, Supreme Court Justice to be, John Roberts:

No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation. A twelve-year-old girl was arrested, searched, and handcuffed. Her shoelaces were removed, and she was transported in the windowless rear compartment of a police vehicle to a juvenile processing center, where she was booked, fingerprinted, and detained until released to her mother some three hours later--all for eating a single french fry in a Metrorail station. The child was frightened, embarrassed, and crying throughout the ordeal. The district court described the policies that led to her arrest as "foolish," and indeed the policies were changed after those responsible endured the sort of publicity reserved for adults who make young girls cry. The question before us, however, is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Like the district court, we conclude that they did not, and accordingly we affirm.

Hedgepeth ex rel. Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 386 F.3d 1148, 1150 (D.C. Cir. Oct 26, 2004).

Again, in John Robert's world, the police can do almost anything in their discretion.

< NYC sued over subway searches | A Punishment That Doesn't Fit >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    D.C. Settles With Wrongfully Incarcerated Homeless Man | 8 comments (8 topical)
    Re: D.C. Settles With Wrongfully Incarcerated Home (none / 0) (#1)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:59 PM EST
    Ah, now it is distilled down. He said he didn't like it, he condemned it, he noted that it had been changed. But it wasn't illegal. What should he have done? Changed the law? I thought we had elected officals for that. Oh well.

    Re: D.C. Settles With Wrongfully Incarcerated Home (none / 0) (#2)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:59 PM EST
    Nice tie-in between Roberts and a totally unrelated case that he had nothing to do with. Think he specifically noted that to the Senate, in writing: that he had nothing at all to do with the homeless guy in Seattle. No? Wonder what he was hiding?

    Re: D.C. Settles With Wrongfully Incarcerated Home (none / 0) (#3)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:59 PM EST
    Money quote:
    But city Attorney General Robert Spagnoletti defended his office's responsibility to hold out for a settlement in both parties' best interests, "even in cases in which the District acknowledges its error at an early stage in the litigation."
    How was it in anybody's best interest to justify wrongfully locking up someone!?

    Re: D.C. Settles With Wrongfully Incarcerated Home (none / 0) (#4)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:59 PM EST
    When was the last time a conservative had any say in how DC is run? If there is a problem with the laws, and there is, we should look to those who passed them, not to those who are asked to enforce them. And as someone who lives just outside the District, I can assure there are many other things wrong with DC, that shing beacon to liberalism on the hill.

    Re: D.C. Settles With Wrongfully Incarcerated Home (none / 0) (#5)
    by Peter G on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    JWH/LNILR: You're a published expert on the Fourth Amendment. I admire your work enormously, and I consider your a friend and colleague. In your opinion, does the D.C. Circuit opinion by Judge Roberts decide the Hedgepeth case correctly or incorrectly under the law? Roberts wrote that his hands were tied by the Supreme Court decision (per Souter, IIRC) saying a custodial arrest for driving without a seatbelt was not unconstitutional. Were they? My humanitarian and civil libertarian instincts want to disagree with the decision. My lawyer side wants to know what you think of it, as a constitutional scholar.

    Re: D.C. Settles With Wrongfully Incarcerated Home (none / 0) (#6)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    justpaul, for "someone who lives just outside the district" you must be completely oblivious. conservatives have controlled it since 1994, the year the republicans gained control of congress. congress controls the purse strings of DC, effectively controlling what happens there. the "french fry" case is actually a poor one for reading what roberts might do as a supreme: poor judgement and outright stupidity, exhibited by poorly trained police officers, operating under even more poorly trained superiors isn't, by definition, a constitutional violation. that, however, wasn't the true issue in that case, the real issue was the "zero tolerance" rules themselves, which triggered the ensuing arrest. judge roberts opined, correctly, that the police exhibited poor judgement, given the level of the offense, which would have resulted only in a ticket and fine were it an adult. unfortunately, as he pointed out elsewhere, the police were required to treat juveniles differently. they followed the correct procedures, which had previously withstood judicial scrutiny. nothing in the present case gave cause to change prior opinion. was it a stupid moment for all concerned? absolutely. did the police commit wrongdoing? no, they merely followed established policies and procedures, deemed constitutional. was it judge robert's job to change the policies and procedures, given established precedence? no, it wasn't, it's the job of the city council to review and change the laws where necessary. i have no idea why you included the case of the homeless man in this thread, since judge roberts, to my knowledge, had nothing whatever to do with it. did i miss something here? judge roberts has a body of work, ripe for the plucking. spending any more time on the infamous "french fry" case is a waste, in my opinion.

    Re: D.C. Settles With Wrongfully Incarcerated Home (none / 0) (#7)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    cpinva, I'm guessing you're unfamiliar with the concept of Home Rule? I'm guessing that your unfamiliar with the fact that DC has a fully democratic, liberal administration? Congress doesn't even control the full set of purse strings, as DC raises plenty of money on its own through income taxes and fees. So who passed this no eating on the Metro law? What is Congress? Or was it the DC city council?

    Re: D.C. Settles With Wrongfully Incarcerated Home (none / 0) (#8)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    CP, In case you're really interested, Washington DC is run, not by Congress, but by the DC City Council, which, according to its Chairman, "makes the laws for local Washington, DC", and by the Mayor. Washington, DC has had what is known as Home Rule since 1973, under which Congress delegated "certain legislative powers to the government of the District of Columbia; authorize[d] the election of certain local officials by the registered qualified electors in the District of Columbia; grant[ed] to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia powers of local self-government; modernize[d], reorganize[d], and otherwise improve[d] the governmental structure of the District of Columbia; and, to the greatest extent possible, consistent with the constitutional mandate, relieve[d] Congress of the burden of legislating upon essentially local District matters." Now, given the DC has a fully functioning (albeit miserably at times) city government, with a Mayor, numerous city officials, and a City Council responsible for passing the local laws, ordinances, and regulations, I believe the question still stands: When was the last time a conservative body actually controlled what goes on in DC? Finally, it was the Washington, DC Metro Board which passed this rule regarding eating on Metro trains or platforms. So how is this Judge Robert's fault? Should he have ruled that they, the Metro Board, did not have the authority to issue such a rule? If so, on what grounds? And please note that I'm not at all suggesting this was a good rule, or the Transit Cop in questions (or cops, since there have been at least two separate incidents) should not have found a better way to handle the situation(s). I'm simply asking how this is the fault of Judge Roberts, who ruled, it seems on the legality of the rule, not the merits, and who furthermore made his feelings on the merits rather clear in his ruling. Is it any wonder that so few people pay attention to real issues when everyone keeps crying wolf over every minor stupidity? And for the record, I've lived here less than one year, but I'm learning. What's your excuse?

    D.C. Settles With Wrongfully Incarcerated Homeless Man | 8 comments (8 topical)