Old Man In Boxer’s Stance “Tackled” By City Police–Lawsuit Filed

Being a city cop is no walk in the park, but these have been trying times for the city’s Police Department. Recently we learned of the reinstatement of police officers in a coverup of a drunken hit-and-run accident involving an off-duty cop that most certainly would have led to arrests had they been civilians. Before that there was the dramatic video footage showing a woman wrestled to the ground by a Police Department civilian booking officer who has been fired by the city for violating department rules.

Sally Roberts, the attorney representing the tackled woman in that case, has a new client, a 72-year-old man who says he was leveled by city police in 2008 leading to a variety of injuries during a drug raid by the Tactical Narcotics Team against the man’s family members. These kinds of cases always seem to cost the city money.

George Brown Sr. has filed a federal lawsuit against nine city police officers, Ivan Clayton, Carl Berquist, Edward Rivera, Ricardo Vargas, Walberto Cotto Jr, Miguel Perez, Jose Bahr, Gregory Iamartino and Willimson Simpson, claiming they either used excessive force and or did nothing to stop it. The police report states that on May 6, 2008 members of the Tactical Narcotics Team executed a search and seizure warrant at 43 Washington Terrace. That is about the only thing plaintiff Brown and city police agree on.

From the police report: “Upon detaining George Brown he attempted to block entry of members of the Raid team including taking a boxers stance against PO Clayton. George Brown was immediately taken to the ground by PO Clayton and restrained without further incident.”

Police continued a sweep of the premises and arrested several individuals on narcotics possession charges. Brown was charged with interfering with police.

Roberts, who’s representing Brown pro bono, states “This is a wonderful case of Grandpa George (DOB: 8/5/1935), frail & elderly, sitting on a lawn chair when the Bridgeport Tactical Narcotics squad shows up, in full regalia – for a raid on the home – and all the drug-dealing kids and various assorted relatives. Bridgeport’s finest, a/k/a Officer Clayton literally tackled Grandpa George, who ends up with some serious injuries. Grandpa George was probably trying to protect the home front but in his frail state cannot reasonably be said to pose a threat with his “boxer stance.” I cannot wait to present this case to a jury – there is a certain hilarious element to it. I will ask Grandpa George to get off the stand, assisted by his cane, and assume the threatening “boxer stance” for the court & jury. I would not be surprised if some of the jury start laughing so hard they nearly fall out of their seats.”

An excerpt from Brown’s federal lawsuit:

On May 6,2008, at approximately 4:40 p.m., Defendant Police Officer Ivan J. Clayton and the Defendant Officers Bergquist, Rivera, Vargas, Cotto Jr, Perez, Bahr, Iamartine and Simpson arrived at 41 Washington Terrace, Bridgeport, Connecticut, the residence of the Plaintiff, to execute a search and seizure warrant of 43 Washington Terrace.

At said time and place, the Plaintiff was outside on the front lawn sitting in a chair, accompanied by family members. Defendant Officer Clayton approached the Plaintiff while he was seated in a lawn chair and proceeded to throw the Plaintiff from the chair to the ground face first, causing the Plaintiff to strike his head against a concrete walkway.

Defendant Officer Clayton then got on top of the Plaintiff and placed his knee in the back of the Plaintiff while he cuffed the Plaintiff. Defendant Officers Bergquist, Rivera, Vargas, Cotto Jr, Perez, Bahr, lamartino and Simpson had a reasonable opportunity to prevent Defendant Officer Clayton from violating the Plaintiff’s rights but stood by and failed to intervene to protect the Plaintiff.

As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts of the Defendants, the Plaintiff suffered the following injuries and damages:

Violation of his constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure of his person;

Right wrist contusion;

Head contusion;

Left shoulder rotator cuff tear requiring surgery;

Shock to his nervous system

The aforesaid injuries necessitated the Plaintiff to seek medical care and treatment. Some or all of the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff will be the source of continuing pain and disability, and will necessitate further care and treatment in the future.

As a result of his injuries, the Plaintiff has expended sums of money for medical care and treatment, and will incur further medical expenses in the future. Said expenditures have been and will continue to be to the Plaintiffs financial detriment.

As a further result of his injuries, the Plaintiff has experienced and will continue to experience physical pain and suffering as well as mental and emotional suffering and anxiety.

The actions of the Defendant Officer violated the clearly established and well settled constitutional rights of the Plaintiff:

Freedom from the unreasonable seizure of his person;

Freedom from the use of excessive, unreasonable and unjustified force against his person.

Brown is seeking compensatory damages and award costs. The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Janet Hall. Betsy Edwards, on behalf of the City Attorney’s Office, represents the defendants.

0
Share

6 comments

  1. This is the Park City … even though we have not appreciated their importance realistically in a dense urban environment … or we might not have sold assets to the State in the past … and under this Mayor, parks, especially small ones in multiple locations on which expensive signs promoting the Mayor’s environmental interest have blossomed … so saying something is not a walk in the park in the Park City is no small statement.

    Did you notice the group of police at the Ordinance meeting last night? Who called for that type of coverage? What was their ‘worst case’ image of what might happen??? Does the City Police Department have a hostage negotiator, someone trained and temperamentally suited to mediation efforts? That’s the person who needs to attend City ‘hearings.’ A specialist in negotiations might cause City Council participants to realize more information needs to be disclosed so the public may judge the need and wisdom for decisions. Lisa Parziale was especially impressive when she asked for consideration consistent with past Council practice.

    The bullying of the Council by the administration, behind closed doors one assumes, creates a force within those bullied to respond in kind. And therefore we need to provide police protection (on overtime?) to keep civic discussions peaceful??? If I remember, the last time I saw ‘rough and tumble’ in the Council Chamber, the public was not involved!

    Just imagine the thought and consideration by public safety leadership that equates a City Council meeting in chambers with a ‘drug bust’ in terms of the manpower required. How many of the police officers present last night are residents of the City? At least I would have felt they got some education about City issues that need change in terms of their spent time having value, if they are residents. Interesting times. Yet, time will tell.

    0
  2. *** Seems lawsuit claims against the city of Bpt have risen during these hard economic times. The list is long & all the city savings will make it easy to settle out of court sometime in the future, no? *** WHAT’S IN YOUR WALLETS? ***

    0
  3. Yo! Shout-out to The Connecticut Post for following up on those employee suspensions, and not letting the administration play a USS Squalid and run silent and run deep on them. Good story.

    0

Leave a Reply