3 Seabrook police officers on leave after YouTube video surfaces

[Silent_Bob]

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20140107/NEWS07/140109471

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BKzxvH6Czsg

EABROOK — Three Seabrook police officers were placed on paid administrative leave after a video that appears to show a young man being thrown against a wall inside the police department was posted on YouTube.

Town Manager William Manzi III said the town will launch an investigation into the incident and that the officers were put on leave pending the results of that inquiry.

"In response to the video in question, the town of Seabrook will conduct a comprehensive investigation into the incident, which will focus on adherence to established Seabrook Police Department protocols and procedures," he said.

Manzi said he first learned about the video Monday when it showed up on YouTube.

The video appears to have come from police cameras inside the station and is dated Nov. 11, 2009.

In the video, three police officers are seen escorting a shirtless young man down a cell hallway. At one point, one of the officers is seen shoving the man against a wall. The man then falls to the floor. The officer leans over the man and then pulls him up. The man staggers down the hallway with the officer holding his arms. He falls onto the floor a second time, but is no longer visible on the camera. Another officer wearing gloves appears to use pepper spray on the man.
The YouTube video, titled "Police brutality in Seabrook police station," was posted by a person identifying himself as Mike Berg. The identity of the man in custody seen in the video hasn't been confirmed.
The circumstances surrounding his arrest aren't known, but a description posted with the video said: "charged with a dwi and tried explaining that I wasn't drunk and they could be out catching actual criminals."
In the description, the poster said he had not brought a lawsuit "due to the fact I found a lawyer and the lawyer took the tapes and disappeared for 2 years until I finally tracked him down and got it back..."
The poster also claims he has a "permanent lump" on the back of his head, "chipped teeth" and "brain injuries."

The officers' names have not been released, but Manzi said they would be made public as soon as he is certain that they have been properly notified of the action.

"I know there will be a lot of folks who will rightfully have opinions about it," Manzi said of the video. "My position is, we need to give the chief adequate time to get to the bottom of it and conduct a fair, thorough and impartial investigation and then at that point we'll be able to say a little bit more."

The police department referred all questions on the video to the town manager.

[Jim Johnson]

There's that smirk that the by stander cop always has. 

[WithoutAPaddle]

In other forums, so far a lot of people are doing a lot of wondering about the lawyer that the tape was given to, as well as the effect of the relevant statutes of limitations on this victim's right to redress.

1. In New Hampshire, there is some general Statute of Limitations on lawsuits that I think is two years, and I think that the clock starts running at the time that the plaintiff knows of the tort or infraction, which in this case, was immediate.

2. Sovereign immunity from liability of acts by municipal employees may be a bar from suing the town of Seabrook

3. The Supreme Court's Professional Conduct Committee can only hear complaints if filed within two years of the Code of Ethic's violation.

4. Insofar as suing the plaintiff's attorney is concerned, New Hampshire excludes lawyers from culpability for treble damages because it claims that the fact that they have this wonderful Professional Conduct ethics enforcement mechanism in place makes the punitive treble damages unnecessary as a deterrent to unethical behavior.  Honest!

5. Most lawyers call themselves Professional Corporations (PC follows Esq. in most suffixes) which would seem to cap any judgement collection to the value of that corporation plus its liability insurance.

6. Last I knew, or thought I knew, New Hampshire lawyers were not required to carry any liability insurance, but if they had less than $100,000 in liability insurance, they were required to so-inform their clients, but if they had $100,000 in coverage or more, then they weren't required to say anything about their insurance to their clients.


I would say that the two year clock on the plaintiff's former lawyer, both for liability and for Professional Conduct complaints, starts on the day that he gave the video back to his client, because he was engaged as his lawyer up to that date, so those claims seem to still be alive.


This lawyer may well have come to conclude that pursuing this client's rights would be a career wrecker for himself, and since the Professional Conduct Committee is beholder to the powerful entities that administer "justice", they of course would whitewash any Professional Conduct complaint so as to assure that other lawyers would not become reluctant to similarly accommodating powerful interests in the future.

Getting a lawyer to litigate a malpractice case against another lawyer in New Hampshire is nearly impossible.  A decade ago, when I thought I needed one, I only found two attorneys in the entire state who took on legal malpractice litigation in the ordinary course of business, and if the total available pot to collect from is $100,000, this would not be an appealing prize for most lawyers, though if there is some legal principle that makes the three cops and perhaps others still culpable, then the potential collectable judgement might be worth the effort for a lawyer to pursue.

[WithoutAPaddle]

4. Insofar as suing the plaintiff's attorney is concerned, New Hampshire excludes lawyers from culpability for treble damages because it claims that the fact that they have this wonderful Professional Conduct ethics enforcement mechanism in place makes the punitive treble damages unnecessary as a deterrent to unethical behavior.  Honest!

I just found this summary of that New Hampshire State Supreme Court decision in an old NH Bar Journal Article:


Bar News - November 17, 2000

Averill Fee Dispute Decision

By: Dan Wise

IN A DECISION called "significant" by malpractice attorneys, the New Hampshire Supreme Court has upheld the exemption of lawyers from lawsuits under the state's Consumer Protection Act. The Consumer Protection Act allows litigants to seek double or treble damages and to recover legal fees.

The Averill v. Cox decision, released on Oct. 31, 2000, also resolved two other uncertain issues, said William Saturley, a Manchester attorney who often writes on professional liability issues. Saturley said that it's now clear that mandatory arbitration clauses in legal fee agreements are permissible (although they should be used with caution) and that, indeed, the client owns his legal file and is entitled to receive it at the conclusion of representation at no cost.

The key issue in the case had been the plaintiff's contention that the trial court had erred in ruling that attorneys are "per se exempt" from the Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiff's attorney, Charles Dibble of Contoocook, had sought to distinguish the "non-commercial" aspects of legal practice - regulated by the court - from the business dealings of lawyers, which he contended should be subject to the act, based on a prior decision of the court, Gilmore v. Bradgate Assocs., Inc., 135 NH 234 (1992). That decision, although it did not deal specifically with lawyers, asserted that the Consumer Protection Act could be applied to transactions involving individuals in regulated industries. In the Averill ruling, the court expressly overruled Gilmore and reaffirmed the exemption of attorneys from the act by asserting the primacy of another court decision, Rousseau.

The court pointed to the network of regulatory regimes and consumer protections that apply to lawyers as being "comprehensive" and emphasizing the distinctive nature of the legal profession as compared to other professions. "We conclude that our regulation of the practice of law is comprehensive and protects consumers from the same fraud and unfair practices as RSA chapter 358-A," the court announced in a decision written by Associate Justice John T. Broderick, Jr., with Chief Justice David Brock and Associate Justice Sherman Horton concurring. (Two other justices, William Johnson and W. Stephen Thayer, sat for oral argument but were not on the court when the case was decided.)

The court acknowledged that the primary aim of the Professional Conduct Committee is to administer discipline, not to compensate clients harmed by misconduct. The court contended that its disciplinary actions "protect the public as effectively from deceptive or unfair actions in the marketplace as would double or treble damages under the [Consumer Protection] Act" because of the deterrent effect of the court's power to suspend or disbar lawyers. The court also pointed to the creation of the Public Protection Fund, requirements for annual filings of certificates of compliance regarding lawyers' trust accounts, and the greater openness of the disciplinary process as components added since the Rousseau decision that strengthened the regulation of the profession.

[KBCraig]

There's that smirk that the by stander cop always has.

That's your classic outcast nerd who was bullied throughout school by the Big Jock Cop who actually did the slam, but who is now tickled pink to be on his side and "accepted" by the bully and his ilk.