The Law Offices of Muenster & Koenig
| Our Practice |
|
Our Police Misconduct Cases--Overview The United States is unique in the world because our laws provide powerful and effective remedies against police misconduct. In particular, the Federal Civil Rights Act—Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983—offers the finest opportunity in human legal history to vindicate human rights. Section 1983 was enacted by Congress after the Civil War to provide citizens with a remedy for unlawful police arrests, detentions, and killings. The Section 1983 lawsuits our firm has filed have resulted in the award of millions of dollars in damages to families in Puget Sound who were victims of police misconduct. Our firm represents families who have lost a loved one to police gunfire, survivors of police shootings, families who have been victimized by SWAT team raids, and other cases involving serious personal injuries (including police dogbite cases where hospitalization resulted).
John's Article on Theories of Liability in Police Misconduct Cases There are a number of important constitutional rights that are implicated by police actions. Each year, John Muenster teaches one or more continuing legal education seminars, discussing police liability. Posted here is an article authored by John entitled Section 1983 Causes of Action and Theories of Liability in Police Misconduct Cases. Read John's article Section 1983 Causes of Action and Theories of Liability in Police Misconduct Cases
Our Police Misconduct Cases Here are our police misconduct cases which resulted in 6- or 7-figure recoveries for our clients:
(1) Wrongful Death: Our client, an innocent housewife and mother was killed by a SWAT officer during a police raid, in the presence of her daughter and her niece. Her husband was wrongfully arrested and jailed, although he was quickly released.
(2) Excessive Force–Police German Shepard Bites: Our client, an unarmed young man who was doing nothing wrong at the time, was bitten in his calf by a police dog, resulting in muscle/ligament damage, surgery, and approximately a week of hospitalization.
(3) Negligence–SWAT Team Stun Grenade Explosion: Our client, a 13-year-old girl, went to play in an abandoned apartment building in which she used to live. Unfortunately, a SWAT team had been practicing there and left some of their stun grenades (“flash-bangs”) behind. Our client picked one up and it blew her hand off. Discipline was imposed against two SWAT officers and the police chief. The case settled without a lawsuit.
(4) Excessive Force–Police German Shepard Bites: Our client, an attractive woman, rode in a car which turned out to be stolen. The driver ditched the car and our client, the passenger, ran into the woods. A police German Shepard was summoned to the scene and bit our client for about 90 seconds on her arms and legs, causing muscle loss, nerve damage and scarring.
(5) Wrongful Death–Police Failure to Render Medical Care: Our client charged police officers wielding a butcher knife, stating he intended to do them harm. They shot him in the neck. He bled to death. Liability was premised on the failure to render medical care, as direct pressure to the neck wound would have maintained blood pressure until the aid units arrived. Although an inquest jury found the shooting justified, the employer of the deputies involved chose to settle the civil lawsuit we filed.
(6) Excessive Force During SWAT Raids: We represented four families whose homes were simultaneously raided by a different squad of SWAT officers. In each home there was a father, a mother, and children. The fathers were wrongfully arrested and jailed for several days, the mothers were handcuffed and the remaining family members suffered indignities during the raids.
(7) Excessive Force: Our client was knocked down by a police officer and a tow company driver after he verbally criticized them for towing his car. The incident was recorded on videotape. Both the governmental entity and the tow company contributed to the settlement.
(8) Excessive Force–Police Shooting: Our client’s home was raided by a SWAT team. Our client, who was unarmed, was shot in the abdomen. He survived.
(9) Wrongful Death–Police Shooting: Our client, a single man in his 20's, was killed by a police officer without justification.
(10) Wrongful Discharge of a Police Officer: Our client, an excellent police officer who established a fine record at the academy and in her first work assignments, was wrongfully terminated after she was assigned to work under a certain sergeant during the graveyard shift. We brought a civil action against the police department. Our client was reinstated, was able to lateral to a job in another department, and received a substantial settlement.
(11) Warrantless Entry–Excessive Force: Our client was in his home when the police entered and arrested him without a warrant. A deputy struck blows to our client's head and body during the arrest, which resulted in an overnight stay in the hospital. On our motion, a Superior Court Judge ruled that the entry violated the Fourth Amendment. The resulting civil case we brought was settled.
(12) Excessive Force–Pepper Spray: Two young women were filming police activity on Capitol Hill in Seattle. A deputy approached them while they were in their car and pepper-sprayed them without justification, causing pain and suffering.
(13) Wrongful Death–Danger Created by Police: John represented the father of a talented young woman who was killed by her boyfriend after police gave the boyfriend certain information in connection with the daughter’s domestic violence complaints about him. Her mother was represented by another law firm. Our side contended that the police had received inadequate training on handling domestic violence matters, and put the daughter in danger through their actions.
Our Appeals--Overview Our firm has handled a number of appeals, personal restraint petitions and habeas corpus petitions in both state and federal court. Some of the cases establish new precedents. Here are some of them. Our Appeals (1) Brutsche v. City of Kent, 164 Wn.2d 664, 193 P.3d 110 (2008). A property owner brought suit against the City for damage done to property when police used a battering ram to gain entry to buildings on the property, causing physical damage to doors and door jams. The battering ram was used after the property owner offered to give the keys to the buildings to the police to avoid that property damage. The Washington Supreme Court ruled that police can be sued for trespassing if they unreasonably cause property damage while executing a search warrant. Four of the nine justices would also have held that the police could be sued for negligence under this fact pattern, Two of the justices concluded that the property owner was entitled to redress under the Just Compensation Clause of the Washington State Constitution. (2) State v. Sipin, 130 Wn. App. 403, 123 P.3d 862 (2005). In this vehicular homicide case, the trial judge admitted computer-generated simulation evidence which supposedly showed that the defendant was the driver of the car involved in the accident. The Court of Appeals ruled that the reliability of the computer-generated simulation evidence was insufficient, reversed the conviction, and remanded for a new trial. Mr. Sipin was released. John Muenster represented the defendant on appeal. (3) United States v. Emperor West Associates, 177 F.3d 748 (9th Cir. 1999). The United States sought to obtain title over private property and won a judgment in the trial court. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment, and held that the United States was not entitled to the property. (4) State v. Robinson, 79 Wn. App. 386, 902 P.2d 652 (1995). The defendant was found guilty of possession of drugs with intent to deliver. She retained John Muenster to represent her on appeal. On appeal, her conviction was reversed and she was granted a new trial, because her trial counsel had a conflict of interest in representing both her and a witness in the case. (5) State v. Young, 123 Wn.2d 173, 867 P.2d 593 (1994). Police obtained a search warrant based on the use of an infrared thermal detection device. The warrant resulted in the seizure of marijuana plants. On appeal, the Washington Supreme Court held that the use of the infrared thermal detection device to perform a warrantless surveillance of the defendant's home violated the Washington Constitution and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court prohibited the use of such surveillance devices against homes without a warrant. The United States Supreme Court later reached the same result, using similar analysis, in Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 121 S. Ct. 2038, 150 L. Ed. 2d 94 (2001). (6) The Estate of Robin Marie Pratt v. Snohomish County and City of Lynnwood, 15 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 1993). In this civil rights lawsuit, a federal district judge ruled that the police who obtained an arrest warrant were not entitled to "qualified immunity", and denied their motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of our clients, concluding that the police faced liability because they obtained the warrant when they knew or should have known that it was not supported by probable cause. The Court of Appeals also concluded that the defendant police officers faced liability because they "recklessly omitted material information from the affidavit". Opinion, page 2. (7) United States v. Granger, 983 F.2d 1078 (9th Cir. 1993). Mr. Granger was convicted of conspiracy and a number of other charges based on the acts of other people who were allegedly co-conspirators. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit found that the evidence was insufficient to convict Mr. Granger on nine counts in the indictment, and reversed and dismissed those charges. Mr. Granger was released from custody. Criminal Defense--Overview As we prepare a defense, we are mindful of the fact that each client is an individual; each client's case is different; and each case may present its own unique opportunity for a satisfactory disposition. Criminal Defense--Federal Court John has represented clients in pretrial motions and trials in a number of different types of cases, including multi-defendant conspiracy cases, fraud cases, currency and forfeiture cases. Criminal Defense--State Court John has represented clients in state court in charges ranging from misdemeanors to aggravated murder in the first degree. He has filed, litigated and won motions to suppress, motions to dismiss, and jury trials, in the municipal courts, district courts, and superior courts of the state of Washington. John has represented clients in cases involving a total of 33 homicide charges.
|
