Ding-Dong-Ditch-Get-Attacked-By-Sheriff-at-Gunpoint

From Monday's decision by Judge Amanda Brailsford (D. Idaho) in Cox v. Bingham County Sheriff's Office:

On November 9, 2021, Plaintiffs Chelsea Cox and six minors were leaving "personal written notes that were folded into paper turkeys" "at the front doors of community members" in "expressions of gratitude for the Thanksgiving season." After placing a note at a front door, the minors "pressed the doorbell [and] then ran off to maintain anonymity."

When they went to Defendant Bingham County Sheriff Craig Rowland's home, he "responded to his doorbell ring by having his wife hand him his service-issued sidearm"; "exited the house brandishing his firearm"; "reached into the car and Yanked (sic) Ms. Cox from the car by pulling her hair"; "pointed his gun at [her] head"; and threatened to kill her. Sheriff Rowland was later criminally charged and pled guilty to one count of aggravated assault in August 2022.

The opinion concluded that the lawsuit could only go forward against Rowland personally, not against the Sheriff's Office as his employer:

The only basis Plaintiffs conceivably offer to assert liability against the Sheriff's Office is that it employed Rowland as the Sheriff at the time of the incident. The law is well established, however, that a local government entity is not liable for an individual's conduct simply because it employed a person whom Plaintiffs alleged violated their constitutional rights. Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York (1978). "Instead, plaintiffs must establish that 'the local government had a deliberate policy, custom, or practice that was the moving force behind the constitutional violation [they] suffered.'" …

Right or wrong, that legal principle is nothing new; but the fact pattern seemed odd enough that I thought it worth blogging about.

Rowland was sentenced to 10 days in jail for the assault, plus three years' probation.

Comments

[apedad]

As a federal agent, I saw (too many guys) get carried away with their badge and credentials - and weapons.

Freaking power trip glory hogs who completely forgot that little thing about upholding the law.

[Mr. Bumble]

Did you ever intervene or report them?
Were any ever disciplined?

[apedad]

Luckily I never witnessed any law breakers - just a lot of wannabe "Dirty" Harry Callahans.

But to your point - yes I would have reported all potential illegal activity.

[ducksalad]

What was your definition of illegal?

It seems that LEOs often do get held responsible for things that ordinary people would get arrested for. Stealing, domestic violence, DUI, drugs, etc.

However, it appears that actions that are illegal but only an LEO could commit (example: conducting any search that doesn’t fully comply with 4th Amendment requirements, telling a person he is required to show ID when he really isn’t) almost never get prosecuted or reported as crimes. Did you witness or report anything like that?

[Dr. Ed 2]

They probably should never have been issued a badge in the first place...

[John F. Carr]

According to local reporting

When police interviewed Rowland, he stated he was on edge because of past experiences with, in his words, “drunk Indians” from the nearby reservation.

Rowland is now former sheriff. He resigned before sentencing.

The sheriff is not just a government employee who happens to work for the sherrif’s office. He is the head of the office. As such, he may be in a position to create a policy for which the office is liable.

[Rossami]

Thank you for the follow-up. I was, cynically, assuming that he was still in a position to abuse his authority. Good to hear that he's not.

[ducksalad]

Sheriff is no longer in law enforcement, and gets a penalty that is neither trivial nor excessive.

Victims are allowed to sue the actual criminal but not the taxpayers.

For once things turned out how they are supposed to.

[bacchys]

They should be able to sue the Sheriff's Office. He was acting under color of law.

The taxpayers are (largely) the idiot voters who put this thug in office.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ten days actual time in jail seems awfully light given the conduct. Sure, they threw away the more serious charges he seems abundantly guilty of, and let him plead guilty to a lesser offense, but even for what he did plead to he could have been thrown in prison for up to five years. And he only got ten DAYS?

What ever happened to "real offense sentencing"? Does it only get deployed against peons who don't draw government paychecks?

[ducksalad]

TLDR version: 3 years probation is a bit weak but not out of line even in red states.

Spent a morning in court here (TX) a few months back and saw like half a dozen people in a row get offered 3 years deferred adjudication for first offense felonies. Seems to be some kind of standard if there are no previous convictions, no one got physically injured, the defendant doesn’t ask for a trial, and at least tries to act contrite.

Regardless of whether it was serious or trivial, laughable or scary, all were offered the exact same deal, 3 years deferred, with identical conditions. One had pulled a gun in a bar and emptied it into the bottle shelf and ceiling during an argument. Another IIRC had led the police on a car chase in a stolen car. At the other end, another had quietly driven off from a traffic stop and gone home at normal speed after handing over the driver’s license and insurance, “reasoning” that the police already had what they needed.

The deferred adjudication actually has fairly onerous conditions – zero alcohol, no travel outside the county without permission, consent to unlimited warrrantless searches of the home, on call 24/7/365 anytime the probation officer wants to check on you, a $750 administrative penalty up front plus ongoing monthly fee to pay the probation officer, and worst of all, signing an agreement that it can be converted to any penitentiary sentence up to the maximum with all further legal process waived in advance.

BTW, the person who drove off from the traffic ticket declined the deal. The prosecutor dropped the charges.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not complaining about the probation, that seems reasonable. Just the week and change in jail. Absurdly light for physically attacking somebody, and pointing a gun at them while threatening to kill them.

[KenveeB]

With probation, you usually only get a few days in jail. It's supposed to be just getting their attention so they'll behave on probation, not a fully punitive sentence. You want that, you don't do probation at all.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Take a photo, but I agree with Brett.

This wasn't some random twit with a gun making a mistake. This was a law enforcement officer, which makes his transgression a bigger crime IMO.

[bacchys]

Law enforcement is held to lower standards.

[Krayt]

I assume they wanted to be able to sue the city, too, with much deeper, tax-backed money.

[john17three]

This occurred in my hometown, less than 20 mins from where I live now.
Sadly enough, it took a full seven months for the Sheriff to resign after charges were filed. The guy actually seemed to think for a while that he could ride it out and be re-elected.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hopefully he doesn't wind up as a LEO somewhere else.

[ducksalad]

You’re saying the county failed to fire him for seven months? Maybe they should be liable after all. Of course that means you personally would be paying for part of it, assuming you didn't move over the county line.

[Drewski]

Sheriffs are elected officials and can't be fired. I believe in Idaho impeachment is the only way to remove one from office.

[Dr. Ed 2]

States increasingly are having a state entity with the authority to prohibit someone from being a police officer within the state -- in MA it is called POST and appears to be getting rid of some of the bad apples that arbitration kept reinstating.

Wouldn't this end the reign of an elected Sheriff?

[David Nieporent]

If it's an elected position, then those regulations would almost certainly not apply to it.

[Martinned2]

They ought to. A post being elected doesn't mean the state government can't put constraints on who can hold the post.

[David Nieporent]

A sheriff is likely an elected position; the county may not have the authority to fire him. (Presumably there's some way to remove an elected official, of course, but it's likely more involved than someone channeling their inner game show host Trump.)

[ducksalad]

OK, good point.

[not guilty]

I am a bit surprised that the opinion does not discuss Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986). While the District Court correctly recognized that a local government entity is not liable for an individual’s conduct simply because it employed a person whom Plaintiffs alleged violated their constitutional rights. Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978), a local government can be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a single decision by local policymakers if the decision to adopt a particular course of action is directed by those who establish governmental policy. Pembaur, at 480.

Liability under § 1983 attaches where — and only where — a deliberate choice to follow a course of action is made from among various alternatives by the official or officials responsible for establishing final policy with respect to the subject matter in question. Id., at 483 (plurality opinion).

[Alanatswbell]

Was his employment terminated? Did he lose his certification?