Judge rules in favor of WPD in lawsuit

A Federal Court Judge has ruled in favor of the Winder Police Department in a $1 million Fourth Amendment lawsuit filed on behalf of a juvenile and his grandmother in March of 2010.

The four-page order grants summary judgment to co-defendants WPD and the City of Winder on all counts brought against them by Dana Billings in October last year.

Billings filed the lawsuit, which stemmed from an April 16, 2009 incident in which officers went to Billing's mother's home to search for Quincy Smith, a fugitive thought to be involved in the two April 2009 shootings.

Billing's lawsuit sought a $1 million judgment contending that police forced her 15-year-old son out of his grandmother's Pinerock Road home in order to search the home without consent and without a warrant.

Court documents state that Billings had voluntarily dismissed all of her claims in the case prior to when the defendants filed for summary judgment in October 2010.

For the full story, see the Oct. 19 issue of the Barrow Journal.

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

#1 well on 10/21/11 at 12:37 PM [Reply]

um the judge ruling was only making sure that defendants were clear from further action by the claims filed, he merely held what the filing party already dropped.

so wheres the story here it didnt clear the Dept just dealt with the fact a suit was filed, filer made choice to stop it, then defendant to avoid future litigation asked for summary judgemnt which was uncontested by filer.

this is no story here.

#1.1 Are you kidding on 10/21/11 at 09:43 PM [Reply]

"so wheres the story here"

Answer: Judge Rules in favor of WPD. Think that says it all. But if you didn't get that then here is some more help. Ready, here it comes, " For the full story, see the Oct. 19 issue of the Barrow Journal". Get all the facts before thinking you know what your debating about.
If they did not print it, you would be complaining about that I am sure. I can see it now. "How is it that a police department I pay taxes too not mention anything about being sued" or "what are they trying the hide?" that one is always my favorite.

So here the Journal is keeping people up to date and you complain about it being news or not. Maybe you should go start your own newspaper and print ANYTHING you want.

You make want to make it a childrens book with your whole spelling, punctuation and grammer problems.

#2 Anonymous on 10/21/11 at 01:06 PM [Reply]

It is a story....people raised heck in the paper about how Winder Officers violated the poor little guys rights...now the BJ does what is right and prints that there was never a case. It was all made up to try to get something. When they saw the City would stand up for the officers, they tried to drop it. Good job BJ and the courts!

#3 well on 10/21/11 at 01:20 PM [Reply]

they did drop it, not tried.
and the fact they dropped it doesnt mean the Police acted within the limits set fourth by the Constitution,
sometimes one decides that a fight is right but more then one is willing to undertake.
The ruling does not clear or show that the Police acted within the limits merely the person who filed made a choice to drop complaint, not that the Police acted either within or outside the rights of the filer.

#3.1 Anonymous on 10/21/11 at 11:21 PM [Reply]

Please read...They did not drop it. They TRIED to drop it but the court would not allow it since the City had already filed motions. Please read the story.

#4 Anonymous on 10/21/11 at 10:29 PM [Reply]

Judges get payed out of the same pot as any other government employe. You don't see them rule against each other very often.

#5 ok on 10/22/11 at 07:10 AM [Reply]

if I file a suit against someone, it goes to court, I fail to pursue the case the other side will make arguments, A judge has no one to oppose those atguments, so as long as whatever they argue is not going to do more then keep them from future litigation in the matter the judge will sign off on it.

Just like if someone sued me, I got properly served and made the choice not to appear the udge most times would find in favor of the person suing me, and I guess you could claim he ruled against me.

In truth he took the argument of the persons suing and followed what they presented.

When one gives up it is hardly a ruling against them!!!!!

#6 here is what was ruled on 10/22/11 at 07:36 AM [Reply]

$17,892.00 in attorney's fees and $1,711.79 in costs

Good luck on the city ever ggetting that has probably the only funds coming in are from the govt to this family, and the federal Govt just slapped banks for allowing collectors to take those funds illegally from receivers bank accts in the past,

whooo hoooo!!! no money no judgement!!!

Good Luck and by the way I did know what I was talking about and dont rely on the headline or the paper to get all the information, the ruling was based on one sides introduction and testimony, unchallenged, that doesnt make it true.

just like the lady who was arrested and held in Atlanta for 53 days, even though she wasn't guilty of anything.

If she filed a suit claimed whatever and nobody made arguments to the contrary the judge would enter ruling based on what she stated, no one to argue the facts presented then they become the record.

Hello, what kind of law does your wife practice that she cant explain this to you????

the key there is the lady probably doesn't own her property or she owes more then she has in it, getting Govt subsidies that the City in not legally allowed to touch, it is similar to if I by accident hit you with my car, you got a judgement against me and I was on SSI or the like, the judgement could be for a million dollars but you will never see dime one!

have your great legal minded wife explain how Mr O.J. Simpson get 33,000 a month that no one can touch even if they have a judgement against him,

Glad your family is not judges!!!!

#6.1 wrong on 10/23/11 at 10:46 PM [Reply]

It states in the lawsuit that she owns the house.

#6.1.1 Ok on 10/23/11 at 11:36 PM [Reply]

there are varying degrees of ownership most of America really is renting thier home, just from the bank

#6.1.2 her mother on 10/23/11 at 11:54 PM [Reply]

Owns the home, not the childs mother!!!!

#7 Donna on 10/22/11 at 07:39 AM [Reply]

Google Billings V Winder to read the court rulings. the court ruled this was a frivolous law suit and ordered Ms. Billings to pay almost $20,000 in legal fees. In the depositions the only witness to the incident other than officers was Ms. Billings son and his story was the same as the officers. No wonder she wanted to drop the case, she knew she was going to be on the hook for the legal fees.

#8 Ok on 10/22/11 at 07:46 AM [Reply]

on the hook you cant get water from a stone!!!!
no money that isn't protected under law from collections means no money for winder!!!

hmm go file suits against people living in Spain and you would get judgements also, good luck on collecting them.

an judgement the bears no fruit is worthless other then the taxpayer will be paying the extra hours to this law firm when if the had agreed to the dismissal or just asked for a dismissal with prejudice it wouldn't have racked up the billable hours the City will be paying to this Lawyer.

#9 don't get me started on 10/22/11 at 08:28 AM [Reply]

I really have an issue with the whole matter and how far it got. The lawyers for the billings family should have tried to warn them and if they did then the Billings dropped the ball.

#10 Attorney? on 10/23/11 at 10:43 PM [Reply]

Why was this case not handled by our city attorney?
It shows on Billings vs. Winder another name.

#10.1 kickback on 10/23/11 at 11:43 PM [Reply]

it is easier to pay of friends if you have venue that makes it look legit

#10.2 Anonymous too on 10/24/11 at 05:12 AM [Reply]

Because cities and counties have insurance.

If they choose to handle the case with their own attorney, then any loss or settlement is on that particular government. Usually, the insurance company is notified and then the decision to turn the case over to the insursance company to assign their own lawyers. Most have a deductable of around 10K. If the insurance company settles or loses the case, the city is only out the deductable. The city usually has no say in the matter if the insurance company decides to settle.

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 six minus five?
: Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Judge rules in favor of WPD in lawsuit

Barrow Journal

Judge rules in favor of WPD in lawsuit

Recent Stories

Recent Comments

This Week's Poll

Sister Sites

Archives

Community

Keyword Tags