Section 1983 civil lawsuits that involve police misconduct often require proof of direct involvement of the governmental defendant to attach liability against that governmental defendant. In other words, you cannot make a defendant such as a city liable for the misconduct of its officers simply because the officer worked for the city.
One way a plaintiff can show such direct involvement is when the city defendant condones the misconduct of its officers. A plaintiff can show this in a number of ways....and one way is to show how high ranking city police personnel ignore misconduct of an offending officer despite evidence and recommendations from its own staff assigned to investigate and charge such police misconduct.
Omission such as these are generally admissible in section 1983 actions, even if the lawsuit does not involve such a hypothetical officer as I have described.
Unfortunately, CPD has produced yet another perfect example of my hypothetical with Mr. McPherson.
Robin Ruben Flores
* * *
Golly, I'm a retired po po and even I can't believe the hypocrisy in that story. I once got days off without pay due to an overdue oil change on my police car that had 130,000 miles on it.
CPD is so quick to punish the bottom of the food chain, but God forbid someone near the top get a shorted check.
* * *
Having someone who routinely offers up his opinion of right and wrong to the highest bidder accuse us of condoning police misconduct is laughable. We haven't heard from you since the last time you called on behalf of a liar you represented demanding justice, or a cash settlement. As usual you have no idea what the case is about, you have not heard any of the witnesses involved, you weren't present for the disciplinary hearing, yet you want to impress everyone with your holier than thou "legal" opinions.
For your information, the case was investigated by IAD and heard by the command staff in a disciplinary hearing. The allegations were presented, the witnesses gave testimony, and the accused officer and his attorney were allowed to present a defense. After all was said and done, the unanimous decision amongst the hearing panel was that there wasn't enough proof to convict the officer of any wrongdoing. The case was presented, defense was argued and a disposition was rendered - this concept might ring a bell with you.
You don't know anything about the CPD command staff or the lengths that we go to run a professional dual-accredited law enforcement agency, so I would suggest to you, counselor, that you either present your cases including truth and facts, or simply continue to spit out lies and smear tactics in your search for "justice."
Chief Bobby H Dodd
Chattanooga Police Department