Winder Police facing $1 million lawsuit

Winder Police facing $1 million lawsuit

Posted by

in Top Stories & Breaking News, Winder Archives

Thursday, March 18. 2010

Comments (26)

The Winder Police Department and the City of Winder have been named as co-defendants in a lawsuit filed March 10 in Barrow County Superior Court.

The lawsuit, brought on behalf of a minor child and his grandmother Maria Damons, accuses Winder Police officers of committing the acts of false arrest, false imprisonment, illegal search and invasion of privacy.

The allegations stem from an April 16, 2009 incident in which officers went to Damons’ Pinerock Road home to search for the fugitive Quincy Smith.

Damons’ grandson, a minor child, was home alone at the time and answered the officers’ knock at the door. According to court documents, the minor was questioned at length by several officers regarding Smith’s whereabouts. Despite the child’s assertion that Smith was not present, the officers reportedly requested permission to search the home.

Allegedly, the minor refused to allow the officers to search the home and requested permission to call his mother – a request his lawyer, T. Stanley Sunderland, said was denied.

The lawsuit claims the minor child was then forcibly removed from the home and searched.

The complaint states that the officers threatened the minor with arrest if he did not consent to a search of the premises.

The complaint further states that the officers had no warrant, no consent and no probable cause to search Damons’ residence – a violation of the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights.

“The actions that were taken were outrageous and way over the top considering the age of the minor plaintiff,” Sunderland said. “He is obviously not someone who would have been running with the guy they were looking for.”

The plaintiffs are requesting a judgment in the amount of $1 million for the “great physical pain and mental anguish” the minor child was made to suffer as a result of the detention. The lawsuit further claims that the plaintiff was “brought into public scandal, infamy, disgrace and embarrassment and was greatly humiliated by the incident.”

“It is something that shouldn’t have happened,” Sunderland said. “It is something that the minor and his mother are very upset about.”

The city and the police department have 30 days to file an answer to the suit.

Defined tags for this entry: News, Top Stories, Winder, Winder Police

Related entries by tags:

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

#1 Bob on 03/18/10 at 06:20 AM [Reply]

I am greatful that someone is trying to put a stop to the crimes against the pulic that the bulling Winder police and Barrow county court system has been getting away with for to long.
They are not and should not be strong arming anyone let alone a minor. Not only do they deserve to be sued but the whole system should be revamped starting with the police and sheriffs departments and not stopping till the whole system has been looked through and the coruption stopped. Fire them all and lets start over

#1.1 TIM on 03/18/10 at 07:52 AM [Reply]

You got it Bob it has to stop NOW!!!

#2 I'm Shocked on 03/18/10 at 07:34 AM [Reply]

If this is true - OMG - I'd like to know the age of the minor. A minor could be a teenager with a smart mouth, or a 10 year old; either way - it was a minor and the police should have let him call the parent. Without knowing all the facts, on the surface, it would appear they acted inappropriately.

I support our local police and think that they normally do a good job, so I'm shocked!

#2.1 Former MC Resident on 03/18/10 at 10:23 AM [Reply]

Whether the child was a smart mouthed teenager or not, the police had NO search warrant and NO permission to from the "legally responsible resident"...ie, the parent! What they did was unconstitutional and just another example of how the governent thinks it has the right to deny the rights of the citizen!

#2.1.1 Anonymous on 03/18/10 at 10:36 AM [Reply]

Okay, so I take it you stopped reading at the smart mouth teenager. Read the rest of the comment before blogging against it.

#2.1.2 Ms.DeVil on 03/18/10 at 06:11 PM [Reply]

You do NOT need a warrant if you have permission to search. However, by law a minor can not authorize permission so the parent,guardian or home owner should have been called no matter what. It is most likely that the minor in question looked to be 18 and no one bothered to ask because they were looking for a fugitive.

#3 Get Real on 03/18/10 at 05:58 PM [Reply]

I know for a fact this is not true. The Barrow County Sheriffs Office was at the house also but they were not named...Don't rush to judge until you know all the facts.

#3.1 Edwin Gravitt on 03/18/10 at 08:07 PM [Reply]

Obviously, no fugitives were found in this illegal search. The officers who perpetrated this crime should be jailed for an act of treason, as it was a clear violation of the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which they swore to preserve, protect and defend. And if the Barrow County Sheriff's deputies were there, and didn't intervene, they should be implicated as co-defendants in this heinous crime against humanity and the principles of freedom.

#4 Anonymous on 03/18/10 at 07:18 PM [Reply]

guess you shouldn't house fugitives

#5 wrong on 03/18/10 at 08:41 PM [Reply]

actually anyone can give permission to search house if they are resident of said location.

#5.1 Mike M. on 03/19/10 at 09:27 AM [Reply]

Sorry, But you are mistaken.

#6 think about it on 03/19/10 at 09:37 AM [Reply]

Wrong,
In order to give consent to search the consent must be free and voluntary without threat, intimidation or coercion. The consenter must be able to withdraw consent at any time of the search without reprisal. Do you actually think a court would consider consent given by a juvenile surrounded by officers with guns and without an adult present without threat, intimidation or coercion? If so, I hope you’re not a police officer because any lawyer one day out of law school would make you look silly on a motion to suppress.

#6.1 To MIke & Think about it on 03/19/10 at 08:00 PM [Reply]

Sounds like you like acting like a lawyer so why don't you show some kind of law on it and I bet you will not find any to back you! and I'm not a police officer the only reason I know a juvenile can give consent it is because a friend of mine was in a close situation and they lost their case.

#6.1.1 think about it on 03/20/10 at 07:49 AM [Reply]

I'm not a lawyer but an instructor at the police academy and I gave you the law.

#6.1.1.1 To Think about it on 03/20/10 at 08:16 AM [Reply]

No you didn't give any law on it at all, all you did was give your opinion in this matter. What you need to do is pull some case law then prove it,if your a instructor then you should know how to pull case laws.

#6.1.1.2 Edwin Gravitt on 03/20/10 at 09:29 AM [Reply]

Sounds to me like, you should attend several classes on the "Rule of Law," ie. the U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights, as you obviously have been teaching false doctrines at your police academy. And, by the way; do you have a real name?

#6.1.1.3 ME on 03/20/10 at 12:55 PM [Reply]

Has the instructor ever heard "Those who can do, while those who cant teach!". The officers had an arrest warrant. What is the court going to throw out? Will they throw the body out of court? Please dont try to sound smart, you can't. They did not go in the house looking for drugs, they went in with an arrest warrant for a PERSON! If they had found the person and you still say the evidence would be thrown out then tell us what evidence that was. Boy am I glad I had good instructors when I went thru!

#7 Edwin Gravitt on 03/20/10 at 08:41 AM [Reply]

It doesn't matter if one is a lawyer or not, the 4th Amendment says the same thing to all of us. The WPD had no probable cause and no warrant in this case. They and the BCSO were guilty of violating their oaths of office and should be arrested and tried for acts of treason, imho. "The Supreme Court has also ruled that certain searches and seizures violated the Fourth Amendment even when a warrant was properly granted."~~Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

#7.1 True That on 03/20/10 at 02:19 PM [Reply]

OK. What part of FUGITIVE do you not undersstand? They were there to serve a warrant on a fugitive. So they did have a warrant. Please dont comment on matters you know nothing about. All you read (if you read the article) was what an attorney for the plaintiffs said. I guess you hang with these people also.

#8 think about it on 03/20/10 at 04:25 PM [Reply]

To think about it,
Search and seizure law is covered in the 4th amendment. I will not take the time to list the foundation of consensual searches where free and voluntary and the rest is defined. If you look up Georgia v. Randolph a recent Georgia case that went to the Supreme Court (US) you will see the foundations of consensual searches which includes free and voluntary as well as the person having actual or apparent authority over the place to be searched.
To Edwin,
Regarding your first post, you should research the 4th amendment and consensual searches. You will find there is nothing wrong with what I wrote. Just Google consensual searches and look at articles with true authority. The 4th does not apply the same to all. Issues such as age, mental capacity as well as intoxication will affect the interpretation of “consent”. Yes I have a real name but what does that matter? It is the subject of the 4th amendment that matters. Furthermore your authority and credibility is completely lost with a Wikipedia reference.
To ME,
I have heard that saying however there are tens of thousands of teachers and professors that prove it wrong. Do you think you would learn more from someone who has experience in the subject matter or someone who doesn’t? I’d like to sit in on a physics class you taught (given the material) versus as physics professor. Sounds like you haven’t made it past a high school education to experience this treat. However, you are 100% right IF they had an arrest warrant with that address and person’s name listed on it. The officers didn’t need consent. The consent they got was merely a courtesy. I don’t understand why an attorney would file a case if there was a valid warrant for that person at that address.

#9 Edwin Gravitt on 03/20/10 at 05:23 PM [Reply]

Anonymous, I place not as much confidence in a scotus ruling on this matter, as you do on a Wikipedia article. The 4th Amendment is very clear on the matter and the Winder Police and Barrow County Sheriff's deputies(?) were clearly in violation of their oath of office, to preserve, protect and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The WPD, by their actions, in this instance, were the domestic enemy and should be arrested and tried for treason, imho. And, by the way, the officers didn't have a search warrant, as I understand it, and I thank you for your 100% agreement with me about that. Now, I would love to have you and those ks of physics professors, you know of, in a class for constitutional law and enlightenment on the 4th Amendment and the whole U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

#10 think about it on 03/20/10 at 06:56 PM [Reply]

Edwin,
Are you suggesting anytime an officer is wrong they are guilty of treason? Do you realize how many officers would be in jail? Do you realize no one would be an officer because of the implications you idea has?
Also there is a difference between an arrest warrant and a search warrant. An arrest warrant does allow you to enter a dwelling without consent as does a search warrant. Simple, if there was a warrant with this person's name and this particular address, then they may enter without consent.
And there is nothing clear about any of the amendments, if they were so clear then there would be case law regarding them. The very word "unreasonable" is subjective. It's definition will change as time changes.

My comments regarding physics was to the poster,"ME".

#10.1 Anonymous on 03/21/10 at 12:03 PM [Reply]

An arrest warrant allows you to enter only if the residence is that of the person named in the warrant and only if you have reasonable suspicion to believe the person was home at the time. Clearly this was not the suspect's residence.

#10.1.1 Edwin Gravitt on 03/21/10 at 04:33 PM [Reply]

Thank you, whoever you are. There's just all sorts of evidence of the WPD and BCSO being dead wrong in this incident.

#11 Anonymous on 06/21/10 at 03:45 PM [Reply]

i know that the young man dont talk back to grown people because his mom and dad dont play that what they did was wrong and they need to pay for there wrong doing god will take care of it all the truth will come out gods not going to let them keep doing wrong to people hes going to make it right

#12 Edwin Gravitt on 06/21/10 at 07:48 PM [Reply]

Okay, Anonymous, I believe God gave us the mouths, hands and feet to carry out His Will on earth. I therefore believe that it is our duty as Christians to carry out His Will.

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment: E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.
To leave a comment you must approve it via e-mail, which will be sent to your address after submission.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.

Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above:
Phone*

What is four plus five?
: Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry
: Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.

Winder Police facing $1 million lawsuit

Barrow Journal

Winder Police facing $1 million lawsuit

Recent Stories

Recent Comments

This Week's Poll

Sister Sites

Archives

Community

Keyword Tags