Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Policy

Cops May Be Held Responsible for Burning Down Mobile Home in Botched Standoff in Tennessee

Judge rejected request for qualified immunity

Ed Krayewski | 11.11.2013 5:44 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Large image on homepages | Facebook
(Facebook)
got their man
Facebook

A federal judge ruled a lawsuit filed by Margaret Spradlin in Tennesee against Sullivan County and specific police officers involved in a standoff that resulted in her mobile home burning down can proceed, rejecting the argument that the cops should be granted qualified immunity.

In April 2011, police were trying to arrest Spradlin's son, Junior, on murder charges when he led police on a chase that ended at his mother's home. Junior is serving 40 years after being convicted of murder and will serve two more for the high speed-chase. During the standoff at the mobile home, police kept Margaret Spradlin and her daughter in various patrol cars for seven hours.  "A reasonable jury could conclude that people held in the back of a police cruiser with a gun pointed at them and not allowed to leave after doing so were seized," the judge said in his ruling. Police spent the day throwing teargas grenades into the mobile home, including one that started a fire in the living room that burned the place down.

Via the Bristol Herald Courier:

"The Court cannot conclude that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity regarding the force used and the destruction of the plaintiffs' home," [US District Judge J. Ronnie] Greer wrote in an opinion filed in Greeneville, Tenn. "The reasonableness of their actions quite candidly must be decided by a jury based on the current state of this record."

At the same time, the judge tossed out a host of such claims as conspiracy to inflict emotional distress, violation of free speech, outrageous conduct and violation of due process rights.

The county attorney will now try to make a narrower request for immunity, of officers the county claims were only following orders.

h/t sloopyinca

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Ohio Man on Death Row Wants Organs Donated

Ed Krayewski is a former associate editor at Reason.

PolicyCivil LibertiesPolice AbusePoliceLawsuitsTennesseeCriminal Justice
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (40)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Paul.   12 years ago

    In April 2011, police were trying to arrest Spradlin's son, Junior

    She lives in a mobile home, and her son's name is Junior... his Christian on-the-birth-certificate name?

    That's too awesome. I hope this woman wins $50 million. Californeeya's the place she oughtta be!

    1. Episiarch   12 years ago

      As a matter of fact, his father was also named Junior, so he's actually Junior, Jr.

      1. Fist of Etiquette   12 years ago

        You mean his brother.

        1. Episiarch   12 years ago

          No, no, no. He's his own grandpa, not his own father.

          1. Fist of Etiquette   12 years ago

            "Ohh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. 'I'm My Own Grandfather'! Let's just steal the damn dish and get out of here! Screw history!"

            1. Episiarch   12 years ago

              FoE, what was it like lying in that hole for a thousand years?

            2. Hugh Akston   12 years ago

              Look Fist, if history doesn't care that our degenerate friend Episiarch is his own grandfather, then who are we to judge?

              1. Pathogen   12 years ago

                With his superior, yet.. inferior brain, and lack of delta brain waves...

              2. Episiarch   12 years ago

                I did do the nasty in the pasty!

                1. Fist of Etiquette   12 years ago

                  Hey, what smells like blue?

    2. CE   12 years ago

      Birth certificate? We jes' wraht his name and birthday in this here Bible.

  2. Restoras   12 years ago

    You know who else were only "following orders"?

    1. Paul.   12 years ago

      My boss?

    2. Erik Jay   12 years ago

      This is an important point. Watch for my upcoming article on America's renunciation of The Nuremberg Principles with which we tried to prove our moral superiority over the Germans after the show trials (which my father attended). We put Germans to death because they followed orders rather than, as the Principles advised, making an individual moral decision to refuse. That used to be a measure of our TRUE, practical superiority over tyrannies like Germany's and the USSR's -- that we acknowledged the right of the individual, in this case the grunt soldier, to act as an independent moral agent.

      Now, of course, with our country an authoritarian, conformist police state, it's ALL about "following orders." This new "paradigm" flouts our 230+ year-old principles and solidifies our retreat from individual responsibility, limited government, and basic common sense. It's a hugely important thing, and therefore not likely to break into the social media or nightly non-news. Another nail being pounded in the coffin...

      1. Pathogen   12 years ago

        Going against the prevailing political doctrine, and taking a moral stand against unethical, and probably illegal state sanctioned behavior has been unfashionable ever since, and can even be construed as treasonous, nowadays... Ask Snowden...

      2. CE   12 years ago

        Not to mention the war crime of aggressive war.

      3. Paul.   12 years ago

        I believe that "following orders" is the final resting place of any empire.

        the police are now FIRMLY in this territory, and it's codified into common law.

        He shot an unarmed man in the back!

        Yes, but he followed procedure... you see, if you read here, you'll see that...

        Procedure is moral cover.

        We're done.

      4. SIV   12 years ago

        So where will we find the article?

    3. Pathogen   12 years ago

      That dude that handed me food at the Mc.Donald's drive-thru today?

      1. sloopyinca   12 years ago

        Then he did better than the jackleg motherfucker I got at Popeyes today. Three-piece, motherfucker. I wanted a three-piece, not a two-piece.

        1. Pathogen   12 years ago

          You were the victim of a failed "redistributionist" policy, and were denied justice?.... I blame Booosh!

    4. CE   12 years ago

      Darth's Storm Troopers?

  3. Paul.   12 years ago

    An anti-nut punch in the War On Drugs:

    An Oregon police officer cited a driver and said he could leave, but the officer had blocked him in. The officer then noted a discrepancy that led to a search and a drug charge. A court said the search was over when he told the driver he could leave.

    http://seattletimes.com/html/l.....psxml.html

    1. Fist of Etiquette   12 years ago

      So then police are just going to never tell a stopped driver he is free to go. They will just stare at each other until the first one dies.

      1. Paul.   12 years ago

        If the police learn their lesson on this... yes.

        I believe in the article it kind of mentions that. That the cop held that he told the driver he was free to go, but the driver "chose not to", ignoring the fact that the cop had blocked him in.

    2. CE   12 years ago

      An Oregon police officer cited a driver and said he could leave, but the officer had blocked him in.

      Otherwise known as "false imprisonment".

  4. Fist of Etiquette   12 years ago

    At the same time, the judge tossed out a host of such claims as conspiracy to inflict emotional distress, violation of free speech, outrageous conduct and violation of due process rights.

    Seems to me these are the claims a jury might more readily empathize with.

    1. CE   12 years ago

      Seems to me the alleged violations of due process rights are the most germane.

      1. Riesi   12 years ago

        Germane, can you define? Or do you mean German?

  5. Ted Levy   12 years ago

    "The county attorney will now try to make a narrower request for immunity, of officers the county claims were only following orders."

    Because this argument worked so well at Nuremberg...

    1. juris imprudent   12 years ago

      I was going to say how much better that reads in German.

  6. Hugh Akston   12 years ago

    Was this the same kind of tear gas that the LAPD lobbed into Chris Dorner's cabin? The kind that cops refer to as "burner" because it is well-known to start fires?

    1. Paul.   12 years ago

      Probably the stuff they claimed they never used at Waco.

      1. Pathogen   12 years ago

        Somewhat more discreet than a Molotov cocktail... or, flamethrower, and absolutely guarantees that there will only be one side of that story... I assume that that's what it says on the ads and promo materials from the manufacturer, along with testimonials from ATF/FBI/DEA agents, and local LEO's, about all the embarrassing revelations and paperwork it saves them... increasing storm trooper officer effectiveness, and productivity... and safety.

    2. Jayburd   12 years ago

      The special sooper dooper teargas. They admitted that they used it anyway. They must have depleted their supply of indoor gas which means that they're underfunded. And dude wasn't there.

  7. Spoonman.   12 years ago

    These rocket surgeons spent seven hours lobbing teargas into an empty trailer?

    Also, this story really makes one think back to Waco: The Rules of Engagement.

  8. JidaKida   12 years ago

    Stupid punk cops, I say off with their heads!

    http://www.Privacy-Road.tk

    1. Riesi   12 years ago

      Hear hear

  9. John C. Randolph   12 years ago

    "Held responsible" as in, doing time and paying restitution, or "taking full responsibility" the way that Janet Reno kept her job after the Waco massacre?

    -jcr

  10. Gindjurra   12 years ago

    If the county attorney claims that arson was just following orders, the plaintiff should amend the lawsuit to sue the entire police department, since the RICO act would then appear to apply.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

69 Percent of Americans Say American Dream Is Not Dead

Autumn Billings | 7.4.2025 8:30 AM

With Environmental Regulatory Reform, California Gov. Gavin Newsom Finally Does Something Substantial

Steven Greenhut | 7.4.2025 7:30 AM

Celebrate Independence Day by Insulting a Politician

J.D. Tuccille | 7.4.2025 7:00 AM

Independence Day Reminds Us You Can Be American by Choice

Billy Binion | 7.4.2025 6:30 AM

Brickbat: Friends in High Places

Charles Oliver | 7.4.2025 4:00 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!