on sale now at amazon

on sale now at amazon
"I don't like this book because it don't got know pictures" Chief Rhorerer

“It’s becoming a disturbingly familiar scene in America - mentally unstable cops”

“It’s becoming a disturbingly familiar scene in America - mentally unstable cops”
“It’s becoming a disturbingly familiar scene in America - mentally unstable cops”

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-2306, No. 02-2307, No. 02-2308

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

372 F.3d 294; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 12033

October 30, 2003, Argued
June 18, 2004, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. (CA-02-582-A). Leonard D. Wexler, Senior District Judge.

DISPOSITION: Reversed and remanded with instructions.


CASE SUMMARY

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellee personal representative sued appellants, five officers who handled the arrestee while in custody. Claims raised included one that each officer violated the arrestee's Due Process rights, i.e., was deliberately indifferent to a serious risk of physical harm. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria, denied summary judgment to appellant officers. They challenged the summary denial of qualified immunity.

OVERVIEW: Police officers arrested the individual on suspicion of being drunk in public. After processing him at a substation and placing a "spit mask" over his head, they placed the handcuffed individual in the back of a police van to transport him to a detention center where medical care was available for intoxicated detainees. En route, he vomited and later died. The claims boiled down to whether the officers violated the arrestee's Fourteenth Amendment rights as a pre-trial detainee through their deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of physical harm to him. The court laid out the two general requirements for liability under the deliberate indifference standard. Deliberate indifference was a very high standard--a showing of mere negligence would not meet it. The evidence did not establish that the officers knew the spit mask exposed him to a specific risk distinct from the general risks of which they were aware. Having ascertained the risk as the officers perceived it, the court determined that the evidence did not show that they responded with deliberate indifference to the substantial risk of harm. Accordingly, the officers should have been granted qualified immunity.

OUTCOME: The court reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity and remanded with instructions to grant qualified immunity to each of the five officers.


CORE TERMS: mask, spit, van, deliberate indifference, vomit, inmate, intoxicated, detainee's, detention center, transport, qualified immunity, favorable, cruiser, mouth, guards, nose, deliberately, cage, indifferent, bottom, adult, constitutional rights, inappropriate, station, prison, fluid, risks associated, prison guards, subjective, emergency

LexisNexis® Headnotes Hide Headnotes


Civil Procedure > Appeals > Appellate Jurisdiction > Collateral Order Doctrine
Civil Procedure > Appeals > Appellate Jurisdiction > Final Judgment Rule
Civil Rights Law > Immunity From Liability > Local Officials > Customs & Policies
HN1Go to the description of this Headnote.Under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1291, the appellate court has jurisdiction to review final orders of district courts. Under the collateral order doctrine, a district court order is final, even if it does not terminate proceedings in the district court, so long as it conclusively determines the disputed question, resolves an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and would be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. Because qualified immunity is an immunity from suit, and not merely an immunity from liability, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial. Accordingly, a district court's order denying a defendant's claim of qualified immunity is a qualifying order under the collateral order doctrine and thus is reviewable immediately.


LOUISE REDDITT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF


LOUISE REDDITT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; JERRY KILGORE, State of Virginia Attorney General; JOHN CLARK BODDIE, Fulton County Major; BILL EDWARDS, South Fulton County Commissioner; PAUL L. HOWARD, Fulton County District Attorney, FAIRFAX COUNTY, Fairfax County General District Court; FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE; VERNON L. THOMPSON, Fairfax County Sheriff; MARK S. LORIA, Esquire; FAIRFAX COUNTY GENERAL DISTRICT; HONORABLE GALLUHUE; HONORABLE CASSIDY; DWIGHT JONES, Fairfax County Public Defender; LEON PONCE; OFFICER PERL, Fairfax County Police Officer; OFFICER HERBERT, Fairfax County Police Officer; DENNIS FITZPATRICK, Commonwealth Prosecutor; KIMBERLY PACE, Commonwealth Prosecutor; HONORABLE KLEIN, Fairfax County Circuit Court; HERBERT HAWKINS, Fairfax County Deputy Sheriff; FAIRFAX COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; JOHN T. FREY, Fairfax County Clerk, MICHAEL MCWEENY, Honorable, Fairfax County Circuit Court; STAN BARRY, Fairfax County Sheriff; MAJOR BOYD WHITLEY, Fairfax County Sheriff; SHERIFF STOVASH, Fairfax County; HONORABLE DAVIS, Fairfax County General District, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 05-1912

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

158 Fed. Appx. 491; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 28845

December 22, 2005, Submitted
December 28, 2005, Decided

NOTICE: [**1] RULES OF THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: US Supreme Court certiorari denied by Redditt v. Virginia, 2006 U.S. LEXIS 6475 (U.S., Oct. 2, 2006)

PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-800-1-JCC).

DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED.

JOHN DOE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GARRETT G. BRODERICK, Defendant

JOHN DOE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GARRETT G. BRODERICK, Defendant-Appellant, and UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICERS, JOHN DOE 1 THROUGH 20, Fairfax County Police Officers, Fairfax County Police Department, Individually and in their Official Capacities; COUNTY OF FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA, Defendants. JOHN DOE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA, Defendant-Appellee, and GARRETT G. BRODERICK; UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICERS, JOHN DOE 1 THROUGH 20, Fairfax County Police Officers, Fairfax County Police Department, Individually and in their Official Capacities, Defendants.

No. 99-1893, No. 99-1894

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

225 F.3d 440; 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 22165

January 25, 2000, Argued
August 29, 2000, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-98-1722-A).

DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.


CASE SUMMARY

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant detective appealed from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria, denying defendant qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, in plaintiff's 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 action for violation of his rights under U.S. Const. amend. IV.

OVERVIEW: Plaintiff filed suit against defendant detective under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983, alleging that defendant violated his rights under U.S. Const. amend. IV and under federal statutory law when defendant, without probable cause, entered the file room of a substance abuse treatment clinic and searched plaintiff's confidential treatment records along with numerous other patients' records.

LORENE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus D. E. VORBAU, Fairfax County Police Officer Badge Number 2245

LORENE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus D. E. VORBAU, Fairfax County Police Officer Badge Number 2245; FAIRFAX COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Mount Vernon District Station; FAIRFAX COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER WICKER, Officer, Fairfax County Police, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 99-2429

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

211 F.3d 1267; 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 7742

March 28, 2000, Submitted
April 25, 2000, Decided

NOTICE: [*1] RULES OF THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.

PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-98-1063-A).

DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED.

COUNSEL: Lorene Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Edward Everett Rose, III, COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

JUDGES: Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
SHEILA PATTERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF FAIRFAX; THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS; THOMAS M. DAVIS, III, Defendants-Appellees, and WILLIAM J. LEIDINGER; MICHAEL W. YOUNG, Colonel; LATRETTA BUTLER; FAIRFAX COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants.

No. 94-1218

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 70

November 1, 1994, Argued
January 4, 1995, Decided
 
Sheila Patterson appeals an order of the district court dismissing her amended complaint without prejudice. Patterson's complaint alleged that her employer, the police department of Fairfax County, Virginia, discriminated against her on the basis of her race and her gender, in violation of myriad civil rights provisions, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Patterson [*2] also alleged that she had been deprived of her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, and that the defendants 1 were liable under state law for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
 

more.............

LASZLO GEORGE PALMAI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GILBERT K. DAVIS & ASSOCIATES; FAIRFAX COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 94-1700

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

43 F.3d 1467; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 40044

October 18, 1994, Submitted
November 10, 1994, Decided

NOTICE: [*1] RULES OF THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.

PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CA-94-268-A).
Reported in Full-Text Format at: 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 31393.

excessive use of force

ARTHUR L. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES R. NIDA, Individually and in His Official Capacity, Defendant-Appellee, and CHIEF OF FAIRFAX COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; COUNTY OF FAIRFAX, Defendants.

No. 91-1253

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 4651

February 4, 1993, Argued
March 9, 1993, Decided

NOTICE: [*1] RULES OF THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.

PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, T. S. Ellis, III, District Judges. (CA-91-585-A)

DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED.


CASE SUMMARY

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff arrestee appealed from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which entered judgment in favor of defendant police officer in the arrestee's 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (1988) claim based on excessive use of force.

how much more of these idiots can we afford?

Dennis Ray Kidd, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Robert O'Neill; Mike Lomonaco; Fairfax County Police Department, Defendants - Appellees
 

No. 86-6599

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

804 F.2d 1250; 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 33366


November 10, 1986, Decided

NOTICE: [*1] RULES OF THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.

PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., District Judge. (C/A 83-609-AM).

OPINION
AFFIRMED.
<>
Search Terms[(NAME(Fairfax County Police))] (41)View search details
Source[US Courts of Appeals Cases, Combined]
ShowFull with Indexing
SortNewest to Oldest
Date/TimeAugust 22 2011 17:58:47
View first documentView previous document23 of 41View next documentView last document
Back to Top

Again, fire the chief, how much more can we afford

Mitchell A. Snitkoff, Appellant, versus Fairfax County Police Department, Appellee

No. 86-7505

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

790 F.2d 889; 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 18849


May 21, 1986

NOTICE: [*1] UNPUBLISHED OPINION]

PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.

COUNSEL: Mitchell A. Snitkoff, Appellant Pro Se.

Peter D. Andreoli, Jr., Assistant County Attorney, for Appellee.

OPINION
AFFIRMED

another murder rap for the cops

Naomi B. Hughes, Administratrix of the Estate of Stanley Wayne Hughes, Deceased, Walter D. Blankenship, Kenneth Madden, Sgt. Arthur T. Christianson, and Lt. Arlington County Police David T. Reiten, Appellees, and County of Fairfax, Virginia, County of Arlington, Virginia, County of Fairfax Board of Supervisors, County of Arlington Board of Supervisors, Fairfax County Police Department, Arlington County Police Department, Richard A. King, Police Chief of Fairfax County, William Stover, Police Chief of Arlington County, John Doe, John Doe, Defendants.

No. 80-1427

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH CIRCUIT

672 F.2d 403; 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 21303

November 3, 1981, Argued
March 3, 1982, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., District Judge.


CASE SUMMARY

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant, administratrix of the estate of her deceased son, challenged a judgment from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria, which held that police officers, who had mistakenly shot her son,

Yet they won't fire the chief of police


Dove v. Boseman, Haugan, and Fairfax County Police Department

Case No. (Law) 93845

CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA

27 Va. Cir. 55; 1991 Va. Cir. LEXIS 357

December 30, 1991


CASE SUMMARY


PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendants filed demurrers and pleas in bar to one of the counts in plaintiff's motion for judgment.


OVERVIEW: Plaintiff filed an action against defendants and the police department. One count alleged that, under color of law, defendants had violated plaintiff's constitutional rights under the Fifth, Fourteenth, and Eighth Amendments

and yet our elected officials won't replace the chief of police

Dennis Ray Kidd, Appellant, v. Robert O'Neil; Mike Lomonaco; Fairfax County Police Dept., Appellees

No. 83-6556

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

774 F.2d 1252; 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 23719

July 13, 1984, Argued
September 23, 1985

PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., District Judge.


CASE SUMMARY


PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff suspect appealed an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which

OVERVIEW: Defendant police officers used considerable force during their arrest of plaintiff suspect

dismissed his excessive force claim brought under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983.

Fairfax County to consider Gay marriage ...........

in an unrelated story, older cops are trying to save 'Just because I have this stash doesn't mean I'm Gay look" among younger cops who are opting for the "Nazi-haircut-because-I'm-still-angry-at-my-father-and-want-to-get-his-attention" look