http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6yaeD-E_MY

Haire law recently tried a civil case involving police and excessive force in Grayson County. We represented a 16 year-old boy from Denton County who was in a postictal (post-seizure) stupor in which he was combative to the paramedics trying to help him. The police were called in, and in trying to get the teenager under control, one officer tazed our client twelve times! The jury found that this was not police brutality or excessive force, that it is what was needed to control a clausterphobic teenager who didn’t even know where he was.

Obviously, police have to be able to use force in order to do their job protecting the public and themselves. No one would argue that police should not be able to use physical force to subdue a combative criminal. So what is excessive force? When does a certain force become excessive and what degree of force should police use? One commonly used model for police use-of-force is as follows:

In determining what force is reasonable under the circumstances, an officer should consider:

 the severity of the crime at issue;
 whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or others;
 whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight; and
 other relevant information the officer reasonably believes to be true at the time.

Lets look at the factors in regards to the Fullerton/Kelly Thomas incident

Severity of crime- Kelly Thomas was being questioned by Officer Ramos for suspicion of vandalism. He was looking into windows of cars not far from where several cars had been vandalized. He acted suspiciously upon questioning, probably due to his schizophrenia, as it was later determined that he had no drugs in his system.
In this case, Kelly was suspected of a non-violent crime for which the police had no evidence he committed except that he was nearby acting suspiciously. His real crime, according to the police, came when he refused to keep his hands on his knees as instructed by the officer. This is often the crime that leads to use of force by police: disobeying an officer of the law. This is difficult to put on the “severity of the crime” continuum. If you are a innocent citizen minding your business, does refusing to obey the police make you a criminal? That can’t be right. In any case, it seems the use of force in the Kelly Thomas case far outweighed the severity of his crime of not listening.

Threat to officer safety- Mr. Thomas refused to keep his hands on his knees, putting the officer at unease. He then attempted to flee from police. At no point did Kelly Thomas come after the police or actively assault an officer. He did forcibly resist and attempt to flee. Again, it is hard to see how someone who does not want to be arrested can be said to pose an immediate threat to law enforcement or the public unless the underlying crime (see above) gave reason to think that the suspect was dangerous.
Actively resisting or attempting to evade- As mentioned above, this is the primary issue in this case. Mr. Thomas was definitely resisting evading once police attempted to arrest him. Therefore, use of force is necessary. But what degree of force? This is where this whole thing gets sticky. If none of the other factors have been met, what is the correct amount of force that should be used to subdue a resistant suspect? In our recent case, police used multiple tazer stuns. In the Kelly Thomas case, police used hands-on force, electrical conductive weapons (tazers), fist strikes as well as flashlight, baton and gun-butt strikes to the face. The State of California decide this was too much force for the situation, which is why the two officers will soon defend their actions to the citizens they swore to protect.

Here is what I know: On calls where there is no confirmed crime, there should be no reason to use force on a citizen. An arrest should only be made on probable cause. Police should not be allowed to turn any interaction into a “criminal” situation just by giving orders to someone that has done nothing wrong. Disobeying police orders should not be a reason to use physical force if there is no basis for giving those orders, i.e., no probable cause for arrest. I also know that situations are constantly evolving, and it should be a requirement of all active peace officers that, when using force, they be able to constantly evaluate the present circumstances and determine the best plan of action with the least amount of force. If not, officers are liable to succumb to “lazy cop syndrome” in which force, especially non-lethal force, is relied upon too early, too much and too often. We cannot have situations where citizens are injured or dying when no crime has been committed. We must expect more from our peace officers, because if they are not doing their jobs, if they are not meeting our requirements and expectations as the citizens who deploy them, they are nothing but armed thugs with authority. If they cross that line, if they fail us and go beyond what is acceptable, they must answer for their indiscretions. They must be held more responsible, because they took on that responsibility in exchange for the power they are granted as part and parcel to donning that uniform, badge and gun. Once we hold them to that standard, only then can we can reliably respect and obey the majority of police officers who risk their lives everyday protecting us.

Nick Diaz fights NSAC

UFC fighter Nick Diaz recently filed a lawsuit against the Nevada State Athletic Commission to lift the suspension they levied against him for marijuana use.

The injunction his legal team has filed claims the rules dealing with marijuana use should not apply to Diaz because he has a medical marijuana license.

I have a couple issues with this story, and blame both the fighter, Nick Diaz, and his legal team. As a lawyer and someone who is involved in the mixed martial arts (fighting) industry, I can see this issue from many different angles; including the fan angle, as I like Nick Diaz a lot.

If you’re a fighter (especially of Nick’s caliber), you know the rules and fighting is your only job. He’s a pro fighter, and while he may be involved in other things, his main job is to climb into the octagon a couple times a year with a lot of training in between.

So one black and white issue to me is that he knows the rules, and he knows when he has to fight. The Nevada State Athletic Commission is very clear they do not allow marijuana, and they are going to test for it.

As a lawyer, it is weird for me to say this, but legalities aside, if Nick Diaz wants to smokes marijuana all he has to do is smoke it in his down time and stop months before he is tested. I also question why his legal time isn’t advising him better. Lawyers aren’t babysitters, but they can at least help him make better decisions.

The worst part of this story is the NSAC is more disappointed that Nick Diaz did not disclose his marijuana usage and that has made his punishment harsher. UFC President Dana white commented saying “listen, marijuana’s illegal. You can’t smoke it. There’s a list of things you can’t do. Here’s the thing with the NASC: If you’re doing something, they ask you to tell them. Just be honest. Come up front and say you did something.” Now he is not saying they would let him go, but he implies that there would be more flexibility.

As a fighter you do not have to act a certain way, many people consider them role models, but as a parent if your kid’s only influence is a UFC fighter than you have better parenting to do. Nick Diaz does have the responsibility to care of his career and be available to fight for his fans.

We say this to Mr. Nick Diaz; we would be honored to represent you and have you represent us, but since it is not likely that you take our offer, we ask that you think of the fans and honor the profession that you have chosen.

Defamation Verdict Exposes Anonymous Internet Commenters

There are many places to hide on the internet, but it is becoming increasingly more difficult to be anonymous on message boards.

There are legitimate reasons why a user might need to remain anonymous on message boards, but posting nasty comments about someone else and hiding behind your computer should not be one of them.

With the existence of Facebook, Twitter, and other Social Media outlets it is very hard to control defamation in our society. Most of those sites require you to at least identify yourself so they at least hold you accountable. There are several sites that allow you to remain anonymous, but with recent lawsuits setting precedence, you might not be able to hide now if you defame others.

The most recent lawsuit involves a Texas couple that won a 13.8 million judgment against anonymous internet forum posters.

The Texas couple, Mark and Rhonda Lesher, started having trouble after they were acquitted of sexual assault in 2009. Their businesses started to suffer after anonymous posters accused them of being sexual deviants, among other things. After narrowing down the IP address that the posts were coming from, they found out that the anonymous posters were the originals accusers in their 2009 sexual assault trial.

This case sets important precedent, and as Dallas-based cyber attorney Peter Vogel stated, “It’s pretty significant. People cannot hide behind the First Amendment and say anything they want.” We live in a free country, but your actions cannot impose on the freedoms of others.

Haire Law understands that people have a right to their privacy, but people also have the right to protect their good name. A person can have their name injured just like their body, and both take a long time to heal. It is important for us to secure compensation for people who have been injured, and we are always there when you need us.

Haire Law hopes you get a tax refund

Another tax day has come and gone, and we hope most of you (if not all) have completed your tax returns. Hopefully a nice tax refund is in your future, and not the other option.

One great thing about yesterday was the amount of tax day freebies that were being offered. The list was pretty extensive and I tried to use as many coupons as I could.

Haire Law didn’t want to be left out, and wanted to be able to offer some freebies. You might not need it today, and hopefully you don’t need it for any tax related legal problems, but we can offer you a free case evaluation.

We do know what you are going through, and we are there when you need us.

Baylor Law School Breaches Privilege

Lawyers are certainly familiar with privilege and the importance of protecting personal data, but recently Baylor Law School got a little careless with their emails.

An email was sent out to the incoming class at Baylor Law School regarding admission and seat deposits. However, the email accidentally contained an attachment with all the personal information of the admitted class; including their names, addresses, grades, and LSAT scores. Thankfully, students’ social security numbers were not included, but that is a small silver lining especially considering all the other information that was released.

The Associate Dean of Baylor Law School later sent out another email making students aware of the breach and asked them to “treat this document as a confidential document, as a good lawyer would do, and delete the document.”

We definitely don’t want to encourage a frivolous lawsuit, but you have to wonder if one of these future law students will treat this situation as a lawyer, and bring suit against the university.

With Baylor being in our back yard, our Denton Law Firm supports Baylor Law School, but we also understand the importance of database security.

Haire Law takes extreme measures to secure personal data, and we secure compensation for individuals who have been hurt by identity theft or as the result of another person’s carelessness.

Haire Law talks about latest Supreme Court decision

The Supreme Court published decisions on two separate cases that can have an immediate impact on 90% of Federal and State convictions that stem from guilty pleas.

With a decision of 5-4 the court ruled that a defendant with an unconstitutional and ineffective assistance of counsel can have their sentences overturned.

Cited in the decision were the cases of Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye. Both defendants were offered a chance to plea to lesser charges, but were found guilty and received longer sentences because of inadequate legal counsel.

Justice Antonin Scalia said “The court today embraces the sporting chance theory of criminal law, in which the state functions like a conscientious casino operator, giving each player a fair chance to beat the house, that is, serve less time than the law says he deserves.”

Haire Law provides skilled representation to their clients, and is small enough to provide personal service. We do know what you are going through, and we are there when you need us.

A couple of years ago if you would have called your friend and told them that you just ate a sandwich, there would have been dead silence followed by… “was that it?” Today in the world of twitterverse, a person would tweet that they just ate a sandwich, and then 2 minutes later tweet that they ate a bag of chips. This tweet would probably receive 4 replies from friends asking how the sandwich was.

In a survey just released by Duke Law, 140 jurors were asked about their social media usage while in court. Apparently U.S courts need to monitor more closely the social media usage of their jurors while in court, because many of them are using social media during a trial. The problem is getting so bad that some jurors have even been caught tweeting about the case that they are serving on, that’s a big no no.

While the rules for jurors have been the same for many years; some jurors are forgetting that they are not allowed to communicate at all about the case they are serving on. The introduction of smartphones has brought about this recent trend, and judges are not taking the abuse of the rules lightly.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported two incidents where jurors received a harsh penalty. A juror in Florida was sentenced to 3 days in jail after “friending” a defendant in a personal injury case. The second juror involved a Texas man that received community service for “friending” a plaintiff in an auto accident case.

Jurors might feel that it is a huge inconvenience to not use social media while they are sequestered, but there is reasoning for such rules. As experienced litigators Haire Law understands the importance of having an unbiased jury, and there are many laws in place to make sure that our clients receive the right of an unbiased jury of their peers.  Although it is not fun to be away from our social media and our family, it should be thought of as a right to serve and not an inconvenience.

We would like to especially congratulate the players and coaches over at Denton Ryan High School.

The Denton Ryan Raiders capped off their district champion season by celebrating “one of the best classes in a long time.” Ryan had 8 players sign national letters of intent and receive scholarships to play college football. Leading the way was the nation’s top-ranked player, Mario Edwards Jr., who committed to play for the Florida State Seminoles.

We applaud the strength and perseverance of these high school athletes to make it through a long season and still excel academically. Like these young men, Haire Law takes pride in our work, and we are excited for these athletes to represent our community on a national stage.

We support Raider Nation and all the amazing student athletes.

Is it safe to say that most of us love a good movie?

While my wife seems to be the only one on the planet who doesn’t, with so many different types of movies out there, there’s always a little something for everybody. Films about lawyers are no different. With the wide variety of films that are made about lawyers, these films often reflect society’s love-hate relationship with them. Lawyers can be portrayed as ruthless and cold villains, or as the hero who defends the minority. No matter what role a lawyers plays in a movie, they are the perfect vehicle to deliver whatever political message the stories writer wants to make, and good writing can often reflect what we as a society thinks.

Without further ado, Haire Law thought it would be fun to present the 10 greatest legal movie lines of all time as voted by you the reader, gathered from the Bloomberg Law Poll.

1. My Cousin Vinny: “Everything that guy just said is BS. Thank you.” (34% of the vote)

2. A Few Good Men: “You can’t handle the truth!” (18% of the vote)

3. To Kill a Mockingbird: “Stand up — your father’s passing.” (13% of the vote)

4. A Man for All Seasons: “When the last law was down …” (12% of the vote)

5. The Verdict: “You are the law.” (8% of the vote)

6. The Paper Chase: “Here’s a dime …” (6% of the vote)

7. Erin Brockovich: “I hate lawyers; I just work for them.” (5% of the vote)

8. The People v. Larry Flynt: “I’m your dream client …” (3% of the vote)

9. A Civil Action: “Your odds of surviving a game of Russian Roulette are better …” (2% of the vote)

10. The Firm: “I discovered the law again.” (0% of the vote)

Watch the video below and listen to all the quotes to help you refresh your memory, and decide which quote is your favorite by voting at the Bloomberg Law Poll.