Motion to Dismiss
I hate these, but here we go - as outlined in the following points:
- Claims of unreasonable seizure under the 4th Amendment.
See: Scott v Harris 2007 - The use of deadly force by law Enforcement during a high-speed pursuit that presents a clear and present danger to the public is not a violation of the suspect's 4th Amendment right.
As per the report, individuals were in a boosted (stolen) Monster Truck, actively driving at high speeds on Great Ocean Highway while ramping up and over barriers designed to separate lanes of travel to ensure public safety. Suspect vehicle acted in a way that experienced Officers saw fit to end said pursuit in the only recourse they have, that being firing upon vehicle tyres. Be mindful that suspects were in a stolen MONSTER TRUCK. These vehicles are not possible to PIT without severe risk of injury to the officer attempting the apprehension; suspects were advised that they would be fired upon and this was not heeded. Both the plaintiff and their passenger plead Guilty to evading; they knew what they were doing and willfully participated in it, they also plead Guilty to Grand Theft Auto.
Tort: Battery.
As stated above, the State believes Officer use of Force was lawful as per the aforementioned case law Scott v Harris 2007.
Claims of Emotional Abuse/Misconduct.
The claim of being unable to file a formal complaint is spurious at best, malicious at worst. It was myself that took the complaint from the plaintiff, I took this up with the Deputy involved as discussed. I'm curious why we're openly lying on a docket posting for the sum of $40,000 for something that simply didn't happen.
Punitive Damages.
I'm once again lost for understanding why these measures are being discussed bar point 1 and 2. I will take this time to pick holes in the medical report helpfully provided as evidence. How on earth is the State supposed to believe that an 'infected gunshot wound' has anything to do with this incident vs any other incident the Plaintiff has been involved with? How precisely does a 'Doctor' make the diagnosis of 'got shot by police' - as far as I'm concerned, Law Enforcement don't engrave bullets with their respective agency name. Perhaps most damning of all, the allegation over infection suggests poor treatment by the 'Local' Doctor. Again, this is not the fault of Law Enforcement but rather someone that can NEVER be brought to court for malpractice? Convenient.
Sharpe out, I hated this.
