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?????

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.

Is The St. Marys PD Is Investigating This Site Or Are They Sending Out Threatening Posts?

The following is of course from my sitemeter account. This tells me who has been on my site. Now I have told you people time and time again, if you work for the government and you post from a government computer, it will show up just like this!!!!

Now I know most of you cops are really good people, but you do have a few dumbasses. When you post to my blog, it sends me an email that contains everything in that post. Now they may have made these posts in front of their "so called friends", thinking they werealmighty and powerful cops, then later they would delete them as the author of any post may delete their comments. But that email does not change so I have the original post. HAHA.

Who has posted?

Well I submitted and open records act request to Chief Hatch who of course responded with:

Mr. Rogers,

I have inquired within the department and our IT department. We do not have a record that tracks individual users of the computers within the department. Under the Open Records laws, since no record exists, we are not mandated to create one. However, based on the potential for misconduct that is implied by your request, I must advise you that if you have grounds for a complaint, I encourage you to file one. We will look into that complaint and take any appropriate action based upon the findings of any investigation that we conduct.

Respectfully,

Tim Hatch

To which I responded:

Wrong Sir,

A record does exist; any good IT person can pull it up in minutes. Bill Smith tried to say the same exact thing when Charlene Sears posted my background on my blog; I proved him wrong and got her name.

Now would you like me to do the same here? All I am asking is for is the name of the person using that computer with that IP Address at 2:30 AM Friday February 11.

Now if silly little games are what you want to play, we can!! I rather just get the name and move on. I do believe the City of St. Marys has enough problems with out another cover up at the police station. If your IT can't figure it out, call Kingsland they can track peoples IP Address straight to their home, I am sure they would be able to help YOUR INCOMPETENT IT PERSON.

And of course the City replies:

March 1, 2011
E-MAIL:
therealschoolpolice@yahoo.com

Dear Mr. Rogers:

The City of St Marys is in receipt of your Open Records Request stamp dated February 25, 2011 at 1:10 p.m. In answer to your request, the operator of the device at IP address 216.170.177.35 is the IT Network Administrator of the City of St. Marys, and he was not logged into the device at 2:30 a.m. As this is a firewall device, it has Network Address Translation protocol enabled. However, log files are purged every 12 hours, to conserve storage space on the firewall device.

To fulfill the request, it would require approximately 6-8 hours reviewing the individual log files for all operators on all systems, as the City does not have a Web Content Filtering System. Since this request exceeds the technical level of the Systems Analyst (lowest paid full-time employee), the Network Administrator would perform the search, retrieval, or other direct administration required. This action is estimated at a cost of $31.55 per hour (6-8 hrs.), provided; however, that no charge shall be made for the first quarter hour as per the Georgia Open Records Act. The costs associated with the request will not exceed $220.82.

In order to move forward, please sign the attached form and return it to the City Clerk’s office at the address below, as your agreement to pay the costs related to the request. If the executed form is not received, the IT Department will not be authorized to proceed. Once the request is completed you will be contacted with the final cost so payment could be made to the City for the information to be released.

If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,

Darlene M. Roellig, CMC
City Clerk
Voice: (912) 510-4039 Fax (912) 510-4013 E-mail: darlene.roellig@ci.st-marys.ga.us

CITY OF ST. MARYS
418 OSBORNE STREET
ST. MARYS, GEORGIA 31558
TELEPHONE: 912-510-4000
FAX: 912-510-4012

So instead I decided to send this email:
--- On Wed, 3/2/11, Rick Rogers wrote:
From: Rick Rogers therealschoolpolice@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: Another Open Records Request
To: "'Bill'" , "Tim Hatch" <100@stmpd.org>, bill.shanahan@ci.st-marys.ga.us
Cc: "'Darlene Roellig'" Darlene.Roellig@ci.st-marys.ga.us
Date: Wednesday, March 2, 2011, 9:30 AM

Ok chief,

I just need a list of names of everyone on duty on Friday Feb. 25 21011 between the hours of 2 and 3 AM. We will sort the rest out in court.

Thank you for your time.

Rick Rogers

To which I get this reply:

Mr. Rogers,

On-duty personnel for the time you cite in your request were as follow:
Sgt. Rich Riggle
Cpl. Jeff Juiliano
Ofc. Matt Dawkins
Ofc. Cydrina Battle
Ofc. Josh Hamlett

Chief Hatch

And today between 1 and 2 AM.

Mr. Rogers,
On-duty personnel for the time you cite in your request were as follow:
Sgt. Walter Baldwin
Cpl. John Moore
Ofc. Sheila Ramos
Ofc. Gary Nichols

Chief Hatch

So the question still remains, which one of these people on duty likes to post nasty stuff on blogs while on duty.

It's to protect and serve, not to protest and blog.

Hatch Would Have Been A Perfect Fit For Roswell!!!!

WHAT A JOKE!!!!!!

GOD PLEASE HELP ST. MARYS

Hatch does not like to tell the public information either. I think he is protecting some of his friends that work in the St. Marys PD. Right now he is refusing to full fill an open records request because the name I want is a friend of his and he knows why I want it, so he refuses and tries to hide behind the open records law.




HELL NO ONE INCLUDING THE MAYOR AND CITY ATTORNEY KNOWS THE OPEN RECORDS LAWS. THEY CONTINUE TO MISQUOTE IT AND EVEN CHANGE THE VERBAGE TO MEET THEIR AGENDA.

CHIEF HATCH IS SO CORRUPT ROSWELL GEORGIA DIDN'T EVEN WANT HIM.

AND THAT IS ONE CORRUPT TOWN!!


http://www.beaconcastmedia.com/politics/Roswell-Narrows-Top-Cop-Search-to-Three-Refuses-to-Release-Information-to-Public-2747

Political Analysis /
January 15th, 2011
John Fredericks Staff

Roswell Narrows Top Cop Search to Three; Refuses to Release Information to Public


Here's the good news: the pathetic and administratively corrupt reign of Roswell's embattled Police Chief Ed Williams is finally about to come to a close.

Here's the good news: the pathetic and administratively corrupt reign of Roswell's embattled Police Chief Ed Williams [pictured left] is finally about to come to a close. Williams, who resigned last fall, should be out by February 1.



Williams Napoleonic-like dynasty of Roswell's cops has been marred with charges of blatant nepotism, unseemly political pay-backs, nefarious DUI quotas, overt crony favoritism, shifty organizational charts, lost files, disappearing evidence, missing money, flash bang lawsuits, wrongful demotion charges, stonewalling of open records requests from the press and downright police harassment of innocent citizens (re: Andrew Wordes).
All the while Roswell City Administrator Kay Love sat back and did nothing to stop Williams's ongoing empire of perverted narcissism.
So good cops quit. Others checked out. Police morale among RPD's rank and file hovers at an all time low.
That's William's Roswell legacy.
Good riddance, Ed.
And by the way, don't let the door smack you in the keister on the way out.

LOVE SHACKELS

City officials announced they have narrowed their search for a new police chief to three candidates. Two of the three finalists are chiefs and one is a public safety director. All serve in southern Georgia. The three finalists are: Chief Woodrow Blue, Milledgeville, Chief Tim Hatch, St. Mary's and Public Safety Director Dwayne Orrick, Cordele.

Now the bad news: Love, who has been intimidated by Williams during her entire$200,000 salary "Peter Principal-esque" rule in Roswell, has refused to release details about her selection process -- or facts on her choices -- to the press or the public. This is par for the Love course: the Roswell taxpayer: be damned.

Both Love [pictured right] and Williams rejected interviews and declined to answer questions from Beacon beat reporters Maggie West and Jeff Bean. No surprise there.

Most likely they'll wait to talk to their "shopper" lackeys who are on their legal advertisement public taxpayer funded payroll.

So what's going to be different, now that Williams is out? That depends on his replacement. That's why Love won't let the public know anything about her choice or how she'll make the decision. Or about what is really going on in the city's public safety division. For example, under pressure from the press (The Beacon), Williams finally released the RPD crime analysis report for the FY year ended June 30, 2010. It took nearly three years to get the last one updated from FY 2008, and FY 2009 is still nowhere to be found. Is this going to be the norm?

These questions linger: Why is Love reluctant to publicize her candidates' qualifications, like for example, their resume, including education and size of the force they currently supervise? Is there something to hide? Is the fifth largest city in the state of Georgia embarrassed by the caliber of their final candidates? Where is the transparency? The public and press can only conjecture.

But sources inside RPD, familiar with the candidates -- who are not authorized to speak to the press -- told The Beacon that Love's handpicked top cop is Orrick. They say the other applicants are mere smokescreens. "Orick is from Cordele, the same area as Williams and Love," one senior officer said. Another high ranking RPD lawman says Love and Williams want their own man -- someone they can control -- who won't be digging into files, cooperating with the press and embarrassing them further. "It'll be business as usual with a different name plate on the Chief's desk," one source sighed.

ONE TRICK PONIES

Records show that Love got applications from some heavy hitters with big city experience -- as well some Feds. But Love apparently is committed to going the po'-dunk route. Cordele? St. Mary's? Milledgeville? These are all backwoods South Georgia one-horse towns with less than 20,000 people. Does St. Mary's even have a traffic light?

Roswell has nearly 100,000 residents and is plagued with illegal immigrants running amuck, multiple gang activity, murders, armed robberies, rapes, break ins, etc.

So why not get a police chief from Philadelphia? Or even Marietta, or maybe Norcross?

Nope, Love wants another country bumpkin, just like Williams, who is from Americus. Misery, perhaps, loves company.

Sources with ties to the Fulton County Sheriff's Department told us point blank that one veteran Deputy applicant, who had FBI training, was told, when attempting to apply for the job through the Georgia Police Chief's organization, not to bother and waste his time. "We were informed [Roswell] was looking for applicant's with less experience," the source said.

When Alpharetta, a city half the size of Roswell, needed a senior lawman with some juice, do you know where their city administrator, Bob Regus went? Try Kansas City. That's where he got Gary George, their big dog. Where does Roswell go for theirs? Why that booming metropolis of Cordele, of course.

By the way, where is Roswell Councilwoman Nancy Diamond [pictured left], the citizens' liaison to public safety on this? We've not heard a peep out of her, either.

If past history is any indication, we won't.

Was Tim Hatch Going To Leave St. Marys?

1/19/11


Roswell narrows search for new police chief to three candidates

By Joan Durbin

jdurbin@neighbornewspapers.com

After taking early retirement, Roswell Police Chief Ed Williams’ last day on the job will be Feb. 1.

And whether it’s due to factors like a bad economy or Roswell’s reputation, the city has seen no lack of hopeful candidates for Williams’ job.

“We received 67 applications for the police chief position,” said City Administrator Kay Love. “We used the Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police to conduct an assessment center as part of the process.”

Seven semi-finalists participated in the assessment center. From that process, the field has been narrowed to three, all from Georgia.

Woodrow W. Blue, Jr. has been chief of police in Milledgeville since 2002. The most current population figure of the city is 21,008 and the department has 65 employees, although it is unclear how many of them are uniformed personnel.

Blue came to Milledgeville as deputy chief in 2000 from Hahira, Ga., where he was the chief. The city in Lowndes County has 2,328 residents.

Blue has a bachelor of science in criminal justice from Valdosta State University and a masters of public administration from Columbus State University. He has been a police officer since 1980.

He was appointed by Gov. Sonny Perdue to the Private Detective and Security Board in 2003 and was reappointed in 2009 to a four-year-term.

Timothy “Tim” Hatch is currently police chief in St. Mary’s, a city that in 2009 had 16,778 residents and a 37-officer police department.

Prior to St. Mary’s, Hatch was a captain in the Henry County Police, an agency serving a population of 191,502 as of 2008.

His criminal justice bachelor’s degree came from Mercer University and he holds a certificate of local government management from University of Georgia.

Hatch is a graduate of the FBI National Academy in Quantico, Va. He has experience as a criminal investigator and has been a member and commander of a Special Weapons and Tactics, or SWAT, team in Henry County.

William D. Orrick is the Director of Public Safety in Cordele, where he was police chief from 1990 to 2006. As of 2009, Cordele’s population was 11,498. It has 65 full time and seven part-time employees, 40 of whom are police officers.

From 1986 to 1990, Orrick was a criminal justice management consultant for Georgia Department of Community Affairs. He was with the University of Georgia police department for three years, and holds a bachelor’s in criminal justice and masters degree in public administration from that school.

Orrick also is a graduate of the FBI National Academy and is a National Institute of Ethics Instructor.

Love will recommend one of the three to elected officials.

“The mayor and council will review and discuss my recommendation for police chief in closure at one or both of the January council meetings and a chief will be named by the time Chief Williams retires,” she said.

No Hatch did not get the job, maybe the Roswell City Council did a google search and found out what Hatch is really about. Why would they want to replace a police chief that was accused of cover ups with another one that is accused of cover ups?
 
Why would Hatch run from his problems here? Because he knows when the truth comes out (in court), his department will be so embarrassed that most if not all the cops will resign. Most likely because the City won't be able to pay them because of the major lawsuit they will have.
 
 
HAPPY JOB HUNTING CHIEF HATCH!!!!

Were Two St. Marys Cops At Pot Houses Before Fire?

Folks,

Email after email poured in over the weekend claiming that St Marys officers were inside these two pot houses days before a fire broke out in one of them. Sources tell me that neighbor's seen St Marys cop cars parked in the driveway of both houses within weeks of the bust.


Did the St. Marys PD know what was going on in these houses?
Did they assist in the manufacturing of these plants?
Is this the reason no one has been arrested yet?

Interesting that one man was cleared completely, yet never once talked to cops?


WHO'S INVESTIGATING THE COPS!!!!!!

Did St. Marys PD Follow The SOP For Arrests???????

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO

Read it for yourself!

St Marys A Hot Bed For Abusive Police!!!!!!!

Will the City Of St Marys Ever Learn?

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/787/787.F2d.1496.85-8288.85-8287.html

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.

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

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

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

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

ATKINS, Senior District Judge:



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.

* 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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:

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."

Id. at 910 (citations omitted).
Upon rehearing, the court stated:

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

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.
Id. at 1499.

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.

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

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