By JACK BOUBOUSHIAN
(CN) - A 5-foot-9 man with no tattoos spent nine months in jail because
Worcester, Mass. police identified him as an armed robber, though the victim
said the robber was about 4-foot-9, with tattoos, the taller man claims in
Federal Court.
Paublo Rivera sued Worcester, its chief of police and three police officers, for false imprisonment, negligence and civil rights violations, in Worcester Federal Court.
An armed man robbed at a Honey Farm Store in Worcester on May 8, 2010, U.S. District Judge Timothy Hillman wrote in denying the defendants' motion to dismiss.
Still photographs of the suspect taken from the store's surveillance camera were posted in the police station. The photos showed that the suspect had a tattoo on his hand.
And the victim of the robbery told officers that the suspect was about 4-feet 11-inches tall.
But defendant Dets. Richard Burgos, James O'Rourke and Francis Bartley identified Paublo Rivera as the burglar and arrested him, although Rivera is 5-foot-9 and does not have a tattoo on his hand the judge wrote.
Rivera was imprisoned for nine months until prosecutors decided the police had misidentified him. He sued the defendants in Worcester Superior Court, then the case was removed to Federal Court.
Judge Hillman wrote: "Here, the officers clearly acted under the color of state law because they operated within the 'traditionally public function' of law enforcement and maintained a 'regulatory nexus' with government since they were employees of Worcester during the underlying events that gave rise to this action. The crucial issue remaining is whether plaintiff was deprived of a constitutional right.
"Accepting the allegations in the complaint as true, the officers used only the still photograph derived from surveillance camera footage to identify the plaintiff as the perpetrator of the May 8th armed robbery and made no other efforts, besides having had past interactions with the plaintiff, to corroborate the seemingly blatant discrepancies in physical features between the plaintiff and the suspect."
Hillman cited 2nd Circuit precedent that a court's "deferential standard" for law enforcement "does not force [a] court to swallow the plaintiff's invective hook, line, and sinker; bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions, and the like need not be credited."
Hillman ruled that the City of Worcester may be held liable for the officers' actions, if a jury finds that "the officers acted negligently during their investigation to establish the probable cause required for obtaining the arrest warrant."
Hillman denied all four motions to dismiss, with leave to amend one of them.
Paublo Rivera sued Worcester, its chief of police and three police officers, for false imprisonment, negligence and civil rights violations, in Worcester Federal Court.
An armed man robbed at a Honey Farm Store in Worcester on May 8, 2010, U.S. District Judge Timothy Hillman wrote in denying the defendants' motion to dismiss.
Still photographs of the suspect taken from the store's surveillance camera were posted in the police station. The photos showed that the suspect had a tattoo on his hand.
And the victim of the robbery told officers that the suspect was about 4-feet 11-inches tall.
But defendant Dets. Richard Burgos, James O'Rourke and Francis Bartley identified Paublo Rivera as the burglar and arrested him, although Rivera is 5-foot-9 and does not have a tattoo on his hand the judge wrote.
Rivera was imprisoned for nine months until prosecutors decided the police had misidentified him. He sued the defendants in Worcester Superior Court, then the case was removed to Federal Court.
Judge Hillman wrote: "Here, the officers clearly acted under the color of state law because they operated within the 'traditionally public function' of law enforcement and maintained a 'regulatory nexus' with government since they were employees of Worcester during the underlying events that gave rise to this action. The crucial issue remaining is whether plaintiff was deprived of a constitutional right.
"Accepting the allegations in the complaint as true, the officers used only the still photograph derived from surveillance camera footage to identify the plaintiff as the perpetrator of the May 8th armed robbery and made no other efforts, besides having had past interactions with the plaintiff, to corroborate the seemingly blatant discrepancies in physical features between the plaintiff and the suspect."
Hillman cited 2nd Circuit precedent that a court's "deferential standard" for law enforcement "does not force [a] court to swallow the plaintiff's invective hook, line, and sinker; bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions, and the like need not be credited."
Hillman ruled that the City of Worcester may be held liable for the officers' actions, if a jury finds that "the officers acted negligently during their investigation to establish the probable cause required for obtaining the arrest warrant."
Hillman denied all four motions to dismiss, with leave to amend one of them.
