St. Marys Police Chief Tim Hatch Sends Threatening Email

Mr. Rogers,

In light of the recent emails and phone calls that I have received from you, and the abusive, harassing and threatening nature of your communications, I am using this email to notify you that I will no longer accept your calls or your emails. Any contact that occurs between us will require your attorney to contact the City’s attorney in order for me to consider responding. Issues relating to your pending court case need to be presented to the judge on your court date. Future Open Records Requests need to be directed to Mrs. Darlene Roellig, City Clerk. Lastly, I want to caution you that the harassing and threatening nature of your communications, if they do not cease, may result in my seeking legal remedy through my personal attorney.

Chief Hatch


Rick's Comments:

Had I really threatened the chief, he would not have sent me an email he would have arrested me. Instead if it continues he will call his PERSONAL attorney.
Chief you are a public employee and the fact that you are not doing your job, and that this arrest was a setup and you know your cops are lying based all the evidence I have shown you, there is nothing you can do about it.

I have the right granted unto all americans to question those in charge.

YOU SIR HAVE THREATENED ME, AND YOU SIR ALONG WITH THE CITY WILL BE SUED. IT WAS YOUR CHOICE TO IGNORE ALL OF THIS IN THE BEGINNING, SO YOU MUST BE HELD RESPONBSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS!!!!!!




FLASHBACK:
Sheriff's Attorney Pops Off


From the T&G.



Sheriff's attorney questions quality of letters to the editor

Dear Editor,

I have no desire to engage in a letter-writing campaign concerning my client, Sheriff Bill Smith. I am writing in response to Robert Southwell's recent letter to the editor ("Sheriff's ethics, competence called to question," Jan. 12) only because I am mentioned, not only by name, but also in a way that could subject Mr. Southwell (and also your newspaper) to a valid claim for defamation.The recent controversy in which I represented Sheriff Smith before the State Ethics Commission was minor at best. The only thing Sheriff Smith did wrong was to inadvertently fail to mention two or three low value pieces of property he had inherited from his parents in a 2002 financial disclosure statement. The theory behind the original complaint, filed by a thoroughly-defeated political adversary, was that if the voters had known of the omission, it might have affected somebody's vote. Sheriff Smith got about 85 percent of the votes in that election, and, if everybody in Camden County had known of the minor omission, I don't think it would have changed a single vote.The only reason Sheriff Smith paid the $1,500 fine was because I advised him that the value of his service to Camden County for the entire day, when he would otherwise have been required to come to Atlanta to appear before the commission, was more than $1,500.Camden County is fortunate to have a sheriff with the competency and good character of Bill Smith. I am proud to consider him a long-time good friend, as well as a client.

Taylor W. Jones Attorney at lawAtlanta

HOW STUPID DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR AND THREATEN TO SUE SOMEONE FOR THEIR FREE SPEECH.

Mr. Jones,

You know good and well this is not the first time the Sheriff ethics have been questioned, So why would we not ask about other ethics violations. We as Americans have the right to question our elected officials. We have the right to our opinions.

I have been the most outspoken person in regards to the Sheriff and his office. Yet they continue to bash Mr. Southwell. Why didn't Mr. Jones say anything about me! I know because I actually have the power. They all know what happened back in December have cost them dearly. Every commissioner was called out and none answered. As it stands now we have a lame duck government, and they will be very careful what they do in the future.

IT IS VERY HARD FOR A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE TO SUE THE AVERAGE CITIZEN ESPECIALLY WHEN THE AVERAGE CITIZEN IS ONLY TALKING ABOUT THAT EMPLOYEES JOB.

SHERIFF,

STOP TRYING TO BULLY THE PEOPLE AND JUST DO YOUR JOB.



Mr. Southwell's letter is in the comments section. Someone please tell me what he said to deserve this ambulance chaser to threaten to sue.

COMMENTS:

What did Mr.Southwell say that was so bad?


Please someone tell me!!!

Here is his letter from the T&G.

Dear Editor,

By Sheriff Bill Smith admitting that he paid a fine to the State Ethics Commission confirms the fact that his ethics are the reason we question his competency as a sheriff of Camden County.

He has no problem answering to the State Ethics Commission through his attorney, Taylor W. Jones, who in my opinion sounds like a salesman with a mouth full of samples.

To the citizens of this county: If we don't vote him out in the next election, we will be subjected to this type of unjust justice for years to come. We need to stand up and elect an objective sheriff. I'm starting early on this campaign, and our next sheriff's last name should not be Proctor.

Robert Southwell

Woodbine
Thu Feb 08, 01:03:00 PM EST

May Mr. Southwell rest in peace. God bless you sir!!!!!

Chief Hatch Has SUCKER Written On His Forehead!!!!

So called arresting officer only on scene for 20 minutes

133 Josh Hamlett

139 Rich Riggle

124 Meredith Mastin

Previous reports signed by Hamlett says Hamlett talked with nurses, Hamlett got written statements from nurses, and ALL OF THIS IN ONLY TWENTY MINUTES.


What happens when all this hits the fan?

How will Hatch defend his guys actions in court?

He can no longer blame anyone but himself, as he is the only one left with any connection to this case.

All others have new jobs, and remember Hatch already lost one job.

Josh Hamlett,Second Cop Accused Of Lying Quits, Only One Left

Meredith Mastin

YOU ARE ALL THAT'S LEFT

YOUR BROTHERS RAN WHEN THEY WERE CALLED OUT!!!!!!

WILL YOU??

REMEMBER WHAT YOU SAID IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM, IF NOT TALK TO THE DEPUTY THAT WAS IN THERE, HE REMEMBERS AND HE WILL TELL THE COURT THE TRUTH.

WILL YOU?????

IP Address.mdb

Alleged Suspect Solved 1 1/2 Year Mystery How Dumb Are The St. Marys Police?

This is the report from my complaint stating that Josh Hamlett submitted a false incident report.

Of course these people police themselves so the great detective Johnny Guy said there was no wrong doing by Hamlett.

Well in reviewing the documents I noticed in point #1 that it stated that the St. Marys Police had no idea who the second 911 caller was.

Well folks this will tell you what kind of people we have working for you. These people carry guns and can get away with shooing you. Yet they can't even listen to a simple audio recording.

Here is the report, followed by the actual 911 calls.

See if you can tell who called 911!

http://www.box.net/shared/457besisxb154glz9ix9

http://www.box.net/shared/cgkmkjed2xrl8d79jsvm

http://www.box.net/shared/67m687ialpar37dd788c

Hatch Lies Again?

Dear Mr. Rogers:

Attached please find a copy of the costs associated with your request for information dated August 10, 2010. A copy of the Georgia Code is also attached in reference to such charges. If you wish for us to move forward with your request, please sign the form agreeing to the costs and mail payment to the City of St. Marys at the address listed below. Or, you may choose to personally inspect the documents, which will be available at the Police Department after 9:00 a.m. on Monday, August 30th. If you wish to inspect them in lieu of copies, please contact Kelly Kotson at 882-4488 to schedule an appointment.
Sincerely,
Darlene M. Roellig, CMC
City Clerk

RE: My Post On Your Wrong Doing!!!!
Monday, August 15, 2011 2:34 PM
From: "Tim Hatch" 100@stmpd.org
To: "'Rick Rogers'" , "'Kelly Kotson'" <145@stmpd.org>, steve.crowell@ci.st-marys.ga.usCc: "'Deb Hase'" , "'Greg Bird'" , "'Chuck Trader'" , "'Jay Moreno'" , "'Kieth'" , "'Bill'" , "'John'" , "'Sidney'" ... more

Mr. Rogers,
In answer to your question about the first investigation you requested:

No investigative file was found relating to the complaint number you supplied. When my Sergeant who manages our website returned from his vacation, we had him pull up the complaint number you provided. This complaint was reviewed when you submitted it, however; no investigation was conducted since you did not offer a complaint about anything that was actually against policy. Therefore, there is no file that corresponds to that complaint number for us to copy for you.

The most recent complaint you filed has been completed and you may make arrangements to obtain a copy of that investigative inquiry from my Administrative Assistant, Kelly Kotson. When you contact her, she will advise you what the applicable copy fees are before you arrive, if you like.

Chief Hatch


So Chief Hatch what were you trying to sell me back in August of 2010?

What The Cops Of St. Marys Search For?

See more IP address' and searches at http://www.box.net/download/account/f_866057570/0/IP+Address.mdb

Look up who owns that IP Address at
http://ip-whois-lookup.com/lookup.php?ip=67.32.149.183

The following is what the St. Marys PD do while working!!!!!

Domain IP Address Keywords Referring Site City


tds.net 216.170.177.18 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.18 real school police google.com Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.18 google.com Kingsland

tds.net 216.170.177.18 gcps.blogspot.com Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.18 the real school police google.ca Kingsland

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.18 "terry readdick""""" topix.com Marietta

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.18 camdenganews.com Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Lulu

tds.net 216.170.177.18 att.net Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.18 topix.com Woodbine

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Brunswick

tds.net 216.170.177.18 the real school police Kingsland

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Brunswick

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Kingsland

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Jacksonville

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Jacksonville

tds.net 216.170.177.18 google.com Woodbine

tds.net 216.170.177.18 google.com Pittsburgh

tds.net 216.170.177.18 search.yahoo.com Fort Wayne

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Brunswick

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.18 topix.com Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.18 topix.com Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.18 google.com Midway

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.18 sandy feller Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Fernandina Beach

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Woodbine

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Saint Simons Island

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Atlanta

tds.net 216.170.177.18 camden county georgia blogs Vidalia

tds.net 216.170.177.18 topix.com Knoxville

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Woodbine

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Woodbine

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Kingsland

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.18 topix.com Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.18 topix.com Kingsland

tds.net 216.170.177.18 fairley cisco Kingsland

tds.net 216.170.177.18 google.com Philadelphia

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Gay

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Kingsland

tds.net 216.170.177.18 georgia state trooper complaints Kingsland

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.18 search.yahoo.com Pittsburgh

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Jacksonville

tds.net 216.170.177.18 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.20 Brunswick

tds.net 216.170.177.20 google.com Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.20 schoolpolice.blogspot.com Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.20 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.20 beth soles tax commissioner Kingsland

tds.net 216.170.177.20 google.com Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.20 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.20 Kingsland

tds.net 216.170.177.20 topix.com Kingsland

tds.net 216.170.177.20 Lenore

tds.net 216.170.177.20 Kingsland

tds.net 216.170.177.20 Kings Bay

tds.net 216.170.177.20 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.20 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.20 google.com Kingsland

tds.net 216.170.177.20 Kingsland

tds.net 216.170.177.20 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.20 Kingsland

tds.net 216.170.177.20 topix.com Kingsland

tds.net 216.170.177.20 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.20 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.20 topix.com Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.20 Kingsland

tds.net 216.170.177.20 the real school police Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.20 Kingsland

tds.net 216.170.177.20 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.20 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.20 camden county blogspot Kingsland

tds.net 216.170.177.20 topix.com Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.20 Jacksonville

tds.net 216.170.177.20 the real school police Haralson

tds.net 216.170.177.20 Kingsland

tds.net 216.170.177.20 google.com Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.20 Atlanta

tds.net 216.170.177.20 Naples

tds.net 216.170.177.20 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.20 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.20 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.20 Brunswick

tds.net 216.170.177.20 google.com Mountain View

tds.net 216.170.177.20 sheriff bill smith camdenganews.com Kingsland

tds.net 216.170.177.20 topix.net Kingsland

tds.net 216.170.177.20 the real school police Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.20 real school police Jacksonville

tds.net 216.170.177.20 camdenganews.com Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.20 topix.net Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.20 google.com Jacksonville

tds.net 216.170.177.20 blogger.com Woodbine

tds.net 216.170.177.20 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.20 Kingsland

tds.net 216.170.177.20 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.20 the real school police google.com Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.20 topix.com Kingsland

tds.net 216.170.177.35 Morristown

tds.net 216.170.177.35 recall sheriff bill smith Pittsburg

tds.net 216.170.177.74 Kingsland

tds.net 216.170.177.74 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.74 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.74 the real school police Kingsland

tds.net 216.170.177.74 Woodbine

tds.net 216.170.177.74 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.74 Jacksonville

tds.net 216.170.177.74 topix.com Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.74 blogger.com Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.74 search.comcast.net Midway

tds.net 216.170.177.74 topix.com Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.74 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.74 Kingsland

tds.net 216.170.177.74 sheriff bill smith topix.com Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.74 therealschoolpolice Kingsland

tds.net 216.170.177.74 Kingsland

tds.net 216.170.177.74 topix.com Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.74 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.74 Jacksonville

tds.net 216.170.177.74 schoolpolice.com google.com Brunswick

tds.net 216.170.177.74 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.74 Kingsland

tds.net 216.170.177.74 "ben jenkins"" ""cumberland island""""" topix.com Kingsland

tds.net 216.170.177.74 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.177.74 Jacksonville

tds.net 216.170.177.74 Kingsland

tds.net 216.170.177.74 Saint Simons Island

tds.net 216.170.177.74 Saint Marys

tds.net 216.170.180.22 google.com Jacksonville

tds.net 216.170.180.22 Kingsland

tds.net 216.170.180.26 Brunswick

St Marys PD Still All Over This Site, And Refuses To Release ORR!!!

That's right folks this cop station refused to look up information about former cop Bob Gedley before they hired him. Information that all of us new was true and the St. Marys Police Department ignored it and hired Godley anyways. But now this blogger is coming after them and now they will check out this site daily!!!

As for my open records request, it has been nearly two weeks since a request a copy of the internal investigation of my arrest from over a year ago. This report has been finished and a cost for the report was sent to me over a year ago. But since that time I have requested another investigation into a false police report, and now they will not release the first report. Why? Are they changing things in the report?

I BET THEY ARE!!!!!

Where are my open records request Chief Hatch?

Former SGT Richard Riggle's Job Application

Job Application For Chief Hatch

St Marys Has History Of Police Screwups!!!!

And the City Council sat by and did nothing!!!

Sound like this City Council:

787 F.2d 1496




Bradley Jay DEPEW, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CITY OF ST. MARYS, GEORGIA, Defendant-Appellant.

Charles Earl FOWLER, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CITY OF ST. MARYS, GEORGIA, Defendant-Appellant.



Nos. 85-8287, 85-8288.



United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.



April 28, 1986.



1

Richard A. Brown, Jr., Brunswick, Ga., for defendant-appellant.

2

Alva J. Hopkins, III, Folkston, Ga., for plaintiffs-appellees.

3

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.

4

Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, and ATKINS*, Senior District Judge.

ATKINS, Senior District Judge:



5

The City of St. Marys appeals from an adverse verdict in consolidated section 1983 actions which were based upon allegations that the city knowingly approved a pattern of improper police conduct consisting of acts of violence, intimidation, and humiliation.1 Appellant maintains that the evidence was insufficient to prove a policy or custom establishing the city's fault regarding the constitutional deprivation of plaintiffs' rights. In addition, appellant maintains that plaintiffs were not denied due process because adequate state remedies exist.2 Because we find that the evidence supports the verdict, and that the existence of a state remedy does not bar a section 1983 action of this type, we affirm.

6

* There was sufficient evidence before the jury from which the following facts could be inferred. On July 22, 1983, plaintiffs, Fowler and Depew, began repairing a customer's jeep at Fowler's garage. After completing the repairs at 1:30 a.m. the next day, plaintiffs took the jeep for a test drive. Fowler noticed a problem with the steering, so he allowed the jeep to veer to the right on two occasions and was subsequently stopped by Officer Kusek.

7

Fowler explained what he was doing, but was told he had to submit to a sobriety test although none of the officers detected any alcohol odor on his breath. Fowler readily agreed to take the test. Later, a lab report showed negative alcohol content.

8

While Kusek went to his car, apparently to obtain the test equipment, Fowler sat down in the jeep. When Kusek returned to the jeep, he grabbed Fowler around the neck and tried to drag him from the jeep. Fowler clung to the steering wheel, because he was surprised and frightened. When Kusek was unable to drag Fowler from the jeep, he demanded Depew's assistance. Depew, however, refused to interfere in any manner.

9

After a short while, several other officers arrived at the scene. One officer held Depew at gunpoint while he was handcuffed. Other officers helped Kusek drag Fowler from the vehicle. Then, Fowler was thrown to the ground and beaten by the officers before he was handcuffed. Depew was taken directly to jail, while Fowler was taken to a hospital for blood tests.

10

Plaintiffs subsequently filed these actions against the city and other parties. Plaintiffs alleged that their civil rights were violated due to the use of excessive or unreasonable force by the city's police officers. Liability was asserted against the city based on allegations that the mayor and city council had knowingly established a policy or custom of police misconduct. During trial, the evidence revealed several prior incidents of police misconduct. The evidence also indicated that the city failed to train, supervise, and discipline its police officers as required.

11

Ms. Donini testified that she had been harassed and forcibly placed in a police car by the city's officers during their apprehension of a suspect on her property in 1981. When she complained of a violation of her rights, she was informed that she had no rights. Moreover, her complaints were largely ignored by the mayor and council members. In fact, the city commended the officers for their actions.

12

Ms. Crumbley, a council member since 1979, testified that the council was aware of the Donini incident and another incident involving Michael Dixon. Mr. Dixon had also initiated a lawsuit alleging police brutality. Crumbley denied that the officers acted improperly, and maintained that these cases were settled merely to preserve peace in the community.

13

Mr. Dyals, a council member since 1980 and former chairman of the police subcommittee, stated that he was unaware of any investigation or disciplinary measures regarding the Donini or Dixon matters. Similarly, when questioned about another incident involving David Chaney, he could not remember any investigation regarding the matter.3

14

Councilman Saunders initially testified that no action had been taken by the council in the Donini and Dixon matters; however, he later testified that the Donini matter had been investigated. He stated that the council concluded that the officers had acted correctly. He also admitted that no action had been taken to alter police policy.

15

Additional evidence indicated that other complaints of police misconduct existed. Officer Ring remembered a complaint involving Officer Murray, but could not recall the details. Similarly, Officer Wiggins, a former training officer, was disciplined when he struck a handcuffed prisoner for no apparent reason.

16

The evidence relating to the lack of proper training, supervision, and discipline consisted of various personnel evaluation reports, employee warning reports, directives promulgated by Chief Keele, and the testimony of various witnesses. For example, Officer Ring was never disciplined other than by verbal reprimand although he had been cited for poor and improper work on many occasions. Similarly, while Officers Halley and Kaser were known to be hot tempered, both officers remained on patrol duty.

17

Chief Keele admitted that he had disciplinary problems with his officers. Nevertheless, he did little to rectify the problem. In fact, he stated, "At six bucks an hour, you take what you can get."

18

While the parties presented conflicting evidence, testimony indicated that the officers received inadequate training concerning the use of force in any given situation and when the use of deadly force was proper. Officer Sanders testified that no instructions on this subject were issued by the department. Moreover, Sanders candidly stated that excessive force was used against Fowler, but that it was nothing that he had not seen before.

19

The evidence also demonstrated that officers had little incentive to learn the policy and directives of the police department. If an officer failed an examination on the department's policy and directives, he remained in the same position, with the same duties, and he received the same wages. His sole penalty was that he was not promoted to a higher rank.

20

The mayor and council showed no inclination to change police policy. In fact, while the mayor and council members were aware of prior complaints of excessive force, they continued to assert that the department's supervision was satisfactory and that the officers were doing a good job.

21

At the conclusion of plaintiff's case, defendants moved for a directed verdict. The motion was denied. After the jury returned a verdict against the city, defendants moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Finding the evidence sufficient to support plaintiffs' claims, the district judge denied this motion as well.II

22

The City of St. Marys contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict which was based on a finding of custom or policy on the part of the city resulting in plaintiffs' injuries. When considering the sufficiency of the evidence, this court must consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs and give them the benefit of all inferences which the evidence supports. This court must affirm unless it is convinced that there is a complete absence of probative evidence supporting the verdict or that the evidence so overwhelmingly supports the city that reasonable men in the exercise of impartial judgment could not render a verdict against it.

23

Section 1983 generally makes every person liable for conduct which deprives any citizen of the United States of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1982). For purposes of this statute, municipalities are persons. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Section 1983 provides a fault-based analysis for imposing municipal liability; therefore, plaintiffs must establish that the city was the person who caused them to be subjected to their deprivation. To establish a policy or custom, it is generally necessary to show a persistent and wide-spread practice. Moreover, actual or constructive knowledge of such customs must be attributed to the governing body of the municipality. Normally random acts or isolated incidents are insufficient to establish a custom or policy. Bennett v. City of Slidell, 728 F.2d 762, on rehearing, 735 F.2d 861 (5th Cir.1984) (en banc). However, the custom need not receive formal approval. Monell, 436 U.S. at 691, 98 S.Ct. at 2036.

24

In this case, while the city provided rules and regulations for the operation of its police department, these rules were violated on numerous occasions. The city, however, failed to rectify the situation. The evidence revealed several incidents involving the use of unreasonable and excessive force by police officers. Therefore, the city had knowledge of improper police conduct, but failed to take proper remedial action. The continued failure of the city to prevent known constitutional violations by its police force is precisely the type of informal policy or custom that is actionable under section 1983. See Herrera v. Valentine, 653 F.2d 1220, 1224 (8th Cir.1981); See also Turpin v. Mailet, 619 F.2d 196 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016, 101 S.Ct. 577, 66 L.Ed.2d 475 (1980).

III



25

Appellant maintains that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under section 1983, because they had an adequate remedy under state law and were not denied due process. Plaintiffs can pursue claims for false imprisonment, false arrest, and assault and battery in state court. Since state law provides plaintiffs with these post-deprivation remedies, appellant asserts that plaintiffs have received all the process which they are due under the Fourteenth Amendment.

26

Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981) is the starting point for discussion. Parratt involved a section 1983 suit for damages of $23.50 brought by an inmate for the negligent deprivation of property without due process of law. The court concluded that the due process clause was not violated because plaintiff had an adequate state remedy. A pre-deprivation hearing was not practical and a post-deprivation hearing was available. Id. at 543, 101 S.Ct. at 1916. The court emphasized the need for this result. Otherwise, every injury caused by a state official under color of law would constitute a due process violation and would be actionable under section 1983. Id. at 544, 101 S.Ct. at 1917. Justices Stewart and Powell concurred, because they did not believe the claim rose to the level of a deprivation of property under the Constitution. Id. 544, 546, 101 S.Ct. 1917, 1918. Justices White and Blackmun emphasized that the opinion was limited to deprivations of property and did not encompass deprivations of life or liberty. Id. at 545, 101 S.Ct. at (White and Blackmun concurring).

27

In Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984), the court dealt with an intentional deprivation of property through an unauthorized act by a state employee. The court extended the holding in Parratt to include intentional deprivations of property where it was impractical to hold a pre-deprivation hearing and where an adequate state remedy existed. The court's holding, however, was based on the fact that the action was unauthorized.

28

We reasoned that where a loss of property is occasioned by a random, unauthorized act by a state employee, rather than by an established state procedure, the state cannot predict when the loss will occur.

29

Id. 104 S.Ct. at 3203. The Court reasoned that while the action was under color of law, the unauthorized acts were beyond the control of the state. The Court then discussed Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 102 S.Ct. 1148, 71 L.Ed.2d 265 (1982). In Logan, the court reaffirmed Parratt but distinguished it.

30

We specifically distinguished the case from Parratt by noting that "Parratt ... was dealing with a ... 'random and unauthorized act by a state employee ... [and was] not a result of some established state procedure.' " Parratt, we said, "was not designed to reach ... a situation" where the deprivation is the result of an established state procedure.

31

Hudson, 104 S.Ct. at 3203 n. 13 (footnotes omitted).

32

Gilmere v. City of Atlanta, 737 F.2d 894 (11th Cir.1984), rev'd, 774 F.2d 1495 (11th Cir.1985) (en banc) is the critical Eleventh Circuit decision regarding this issue. In Gilmere, plaintiff's decedent was killed by police officers during arrest. The court ruled that the state survivor tort remedy was all the process that was due because the conduct was random and unauthorized, and a pre-deprivation hearing was impractical. The court then extended the holdings of Parratt and Hudson to include negligent and intentional deprivations of liberty. The court avoided ruling on whether the same result would have been proper for a violation of substantive due process. In fact, the court specifically stated:

33

Thus our holding today is in line with Duncan v. Poythress, 657 F.2d 691, 704 (5th Cir.1981) where the plaintiff's claim was held to be not barred by Parratt because it was based on the substantive due process right to vote. Additionally, the acts of the police here, although most unfortunate, did not "offend those canons of decency and fairness which express the notions of English-speaking peoples even toward those charged with the most heinous offense" or "shock the conscience," so as to violate the substantive due process guarantees "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."

34

Id. at 910 (citations omitted).

Upon rehearing, the court stated:



35

We accepted this case for en banc consideration primarily to determine whether Parratt v. Taylor precludes a claim by his administratrix under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 because state tort law provides a comparable remedy.

36

Gilmere, at 1496 (citations omitted). The court concluded that plaintiff's action was not barred.

37

Having thus found that the scope of Parratt is necessarily limited by both the legislative history of section 1983 and the Supreme Court's own pronouncements, we perceive at least two alternative constitutional theories ... on which this plaintiff may predicate her section 1983 claim for relief against the police officers.

38

Id. at 1499.

39

In Gilmere, the court articulated two theories which allow injured parties to bring actions pursuant to section 1983 regardless of whether an adequate state remedy was available. First, an individual can maintain a section 1983 action whenever the government's conduct violates substantive due process. Id. at 1501. Similarly, an individual can bring a section 1983 action based upon Fourth Amendment violations. Id. at 1502.

40

Here, the jury determined that the City of St. Marys had implicitly ratified a custom or policy permitting the police to use excessive force against its citizens. The use of "excessive" force in making an arrest constitutes an unreasonable seizure. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to maintain a section 1983 action in spite of the existence of any state remedies.4

IV



41

The evidence was far from overwhelming, but it was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The jury was entitled to draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence and evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. The evidence revealed sufficient prior incidents where the police had used excessive force to put the city on notice. Yet, the city failed to take proper remedial action. This evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the city's officials implicitly ratified a custom which resulted in plaintiffs' injuries. Based on this evidence, the plaintiffs are entitled to maintain a section 1983 action in federal court regardless of the existence of any state remedy. Thus, we AFFIRM.

*



Honorable C. Clyde Atkins, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation



1



Plaintiffs did not appeal from verdicts for all other defendants nor contest the amount of the award



2



Appellant also maintains that the pendent state law claims are barred under Georgia statutes. However, a recent case, Toombs County, Georgia v. O'Neal, 254 Ga. 390, 330 S.E.2d 95 (1985) has settled this issue. The defense of sovereign immunity is waived to the extent of the municipality's liability insurance coverage. Id. Neither Acker v. City of Elberton, 176 Ga.App. 580, 336 S.E.2d 842 (1985) nor any of the cases cited therein are relevant. The implied holding of Acker is that a municipality is not liable for the torts of police officers under a theory of respondeat superior. No such limitation on liability exists, however, when the officer's conduct is based on a city's custom utilizing excessive force to control its residents



3



The Chaney incident was not explored during the trial because the court refused to allow certain witnesses, including a former St. Marys police officer, to testify. This incident also involved allegations of police brutality



4



Gilmere identifies the proper balancing tests which will guide parties in the future. See id. at 1501-02. In this case, these tests are obviously satisfied, so there is no need to remand the case

.

Saint Marys False Police Report!!

 Someone please explain why Richard Riggle was the one that talked to the nurses, Yet his name is nowhere on this report, except to approve it?

Hamlett remember you and me and my wife, were not the only people in the room together. EMT was there too. They saw you in the room with me, so how can you talk to me and the nurses at the same time?

This is currently under investigation by the same agency. Amazing how they can police themselves.

If they can get who talked to who right, then what else is wrong?

What was added or deleted from statements?

I know the two sentences at the bottom was not my statement, that was made up by Hamlett. Riggle refused to allow me to make a statement.