Almost two months after denying practically every allegation contained within the civil rights violation lawsuit filed by former Winder resident Dana Billings, attorneys for the City of Winder further laid out their defense in disclosures filed May 14 in federal court.
Billings filed suit against the City after her son was allegedly forced from his grandmother’s Pinerock Road home on April 16, 2009. The 15-year-old teen was questioned at length by investigators with the Winder Police Department regarding the whereabouts of the fugitive Quincy Smith.
The lawsuit alleges that police searched the home without consent and without a warrant. The lawsuit further accuses Winder Police officers of committing the acts of false arrest, false imprisonment, illegal search and invasion of privacy.
While admitting that officers went to Billings’ Pinerock Road home on April 16, 2009 in an attempt to locate Smith, attorneys for the City deny that Winder investigators entered the residence. The defense further claims that Billings’ mother returned home a few minutes after Winder police arrived at the scene and gave permission for the residence to be searched.
These claims directly contradict a written report filed by a deputy with the Barrow County Sheriff’s Office regarding the matter.
Though the two Winder investigators present at the scene, Missi Towe and Chris Stapleton, did not write a report regarding their activities at Billings’ Pinerock Road home, one of the deputies who responded, Dep. Ernest Ruark, did. In his report dated the day of the incident, Ruark wrote that he was one of the first to arrive on scene and was stationed at the rear of the residence when he heard someone shout for him to come to the front of the residence. When Ruark reached the front of the residence, he saw Towe and Stapleton speaking with Billings’ son. He further wrote:
“Deputy Hunter and Winder PD were looking inside the residence looking for Quincy Smith. I assisted the search and Quincy was not located. We exited the residence and [Towe] was still speaking with the male. The male was identified as a 15-year-old juvenile. As we were walking towards the roadway, a blue vehicle arrived at the residence. She was an elderly female.”
The elderly female was Billings’ mother, who Winder attorneys say gave consent for the search. In their initial disclosure, attorneys for the City go so far as to say that Billings’ mother “was talking and laughing with some of the deputies.”
In the documents, City attorneys make no mention of police efforts earlier that day to locate Smith at an East Wright Street apartment or the attempt to locate Smith at his own residence. Defense attorneys also reiterated their claims that Billings’ son was not threatened, coerced or prevented from calling his mother while police were at the scene.
Also on Friday, attorneys for both parties filed a joint preliminary report and discovery plan. In the document, both sides spelled out the legal issues at hand.
For Billings’ attorney Stanley Sunderland, the basic legal issue is the contention that the constitutional rights of Billings’ juvenile son were violated when Winder Police subjected him to unlawful detention, false arrest and false imprisonment. Billings’ attorney further claims that Billings’ mother and juvenile son were subjected to an illegal search and invasion of privacy.
Attorneys for the defense challenged each of these claims, questioning whether any of the allegations could be proved, whether the City of Winder could be held liable for the acts of its officers and whether the Winder Police Department is “a legal entity capable of being sued.”
The discovery phase of the lawsuit began May 14 after earlier settlement negotiations failed. Attorneys for both side met April 30 in an attempt to resolve the matter. According to documents filed in federal court, there remains a possibility of further negotiations after the discovery period ends. The next settlement conference is tentatively scheduled for September 20, 2010.
Winder questions whether any of the allegations could be proved, not whether or not they happened. They also question whether the City could be liable for the actions of its officers...WTF? Of course they can. Whether the WPD is “a legal entity capable of being sued.”, now that’s a hoot! These can all be answered by 42 USC 1983, the so called “deep pockets” law. Aptly named because it allows victims to sue the municipality for big money. I’ll bet this never makes it to trial.