Hulstedt v Scottsdale: Cops lied; Scottsdale/MCAO still prosecuting innocence

 

On N0vember 7, 2008 Scottsdale cops shot, brutally dragged, and permanently paralyzed a seriously mentally ill man who called them to ask for the Attorney General to come to his home. They had a come SWAT team help him out instead of allowing his family to talk him down from an agitated, distressed state, and he was holding his baby girl in his arms who was consequently injured when he was shot. 

Sound familiar?

Another Scottsdale cop, James Peters, just retired with full disability pension after shooting and killing John Loxas while he held his grandchild in his arms...sure am glad I don't live in Scottsdale these days.

Here's the original post on David's shooting: 

PROSECUTING INNOCENCE: The shooting of David Hulstedt

A year later a grand jury returned an indictment of David, alleging he had kidnapped and abused his child himself the day the cops shot him. Unfortunately, it appears as if David is still being prosecuted for the alleged crimes that "justified" his shooting. That despite his serious mental illness (he was very delusional when the cops attacked him in his yard), and the findings yesterday by federal judge G. Murray Snow that the cops lied repeatedly in order to justify their shooting, which was all screwed up to begin with (thank god for the video of the whole thing). 

Why is David still being prosecuted? From the file I just read, the cops who shot him are the ones who should be facing prosecution.

David's guardian sued on his behalf, and yesterday was a hearing on several motions re: Hulstedt v Scottsdale. News on that front is mostly good; below are some excerpts from the court record. Read the whole thing if you can - it's fascinating and the arguments apply to not only police brutality/ excessive force cases, but also searches.


First, these are the civil claims for damages that were filed on David's behalf:


"Plaintiffs’ complaint contains nine claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and seven supplemental claims under Arizona state law.3 (Doc. 28).

In Claim One, Plaintiffs allege that Officer Dorer and Officer Slavin violated David Hulstedt’s Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force against him when they shot him.

In Claim Two, they allege that Officer Fellows and Officer Garcia violated David Hulstedt’s Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force when they handcuffed him and dragged him across the asphalt, that Sgt. Dorer is liable for ordering that David be handcuffed, and that Sgt. Slavin is liable for ordering the officers to drag David to the ambulance.

Counts Three through Six, along with certain allegations in Count Seven, have already been dismissed on the pleadings by the original judge in this matter. (Doc.182).4

In the remaining portions of Claim Seven, Plaintiffs allege that officers searched the Hulstedt home in violation of the Fourth Amendment after the shooting, and that Det. Lockerby procured a search warrant for the home through judicial deception.

In Claim Eight, Plaintiffs allege that Lt. O’Halloran, Sergeant Scott Smith, Sergeant Dorer, and Sergeant Slavin bear supervisory responsibility under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for directing their subordinates to act in ways that deprived Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights.

Claim Nine(a) argues that the City is liable based on two theories of municipal liability: a failure to train officers and a ratification of the officers’ decisions by the Chief of Police.

The remaining claims arise under Arizona state tort law. 

Claim Nine(b) is for Battery against Sgt. Slavin, Sgt. Dorer, Officer Fellows, Officer Garcia, and the City. 

Claim Ten is for Negligence by Sgt. Dorer, Sgt. Slavin, Det. Lockerby, and the City. 

Claim Eleven is for Negligence against Operator Trott and the City of Scottsdale. 

Claim Twelve is for Defamation against Officer Greene, Det. Lockerby, Officer Scritchfield, and the City. 

Claim Thirteen is for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”) against Sgt. Slavin, Officer Scritchfield, Officer Clark, Officer Greene, Det. Lockerby, Officer Fellows, Officer Garcia and others. 

Claim Fourteen is for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress against Sgt. Slavin and Sgt. Dorer, and 

Claim Fifteen is for Loss of Consortium against Sgt. Slavin and Sgt. Dorer.

Defendants move for summary judgment on every claim. (Doc. 271). Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on Claim One, Claim Two, the remaining portion of Claim Seven, Claim Nine(a), Claim Nine(b), and Claim Ten. (Doc. 265)."

Now, some remarks and observations made by the judge in reflecting on these claims (DH refers to David's 3 year old daughter): 

"One cannot pay “careful attention to the facts and circumstances of [this] particular case” and still conclude that the officers were free to fire at David and D.H. as soon the negotiators had coaxed him out of his front door. Graham, 490 U.S. at 396; (Doc. 313-2, Ex. L-1 at 6)...."

"Once the family members’ cell phones had been confiscated, Officer Antrim continued to speak to David over the telephone, stating that “we’re working on getting your brother but you do know as well as I do that this is not a real common practice to send someone into a home like that.” (Doc. 313-2, Ex. L-2 at 5). After fifteen minutes of negotiation, David apparently once again expressed concern that the police were there to shoot him. Officer Antrim continued to negotiate, and learned more about David’s anxiety and his medication. (Doc. 313-2, Ex. L-2 at 8).

Five minutes later, David told the negotiation team that he was ready to leave the house. (Doc. 313-2, Ex. L-2 at 14). When Sgt. Slavin, who was still putting on his SWAT team gear, heard over the radio that the subject was going to leave the house, he “started running down towards the command post.” (Doc. 269, Ex. PP at 144). When Sgt. Slavin reached the command post, he told the officers there that he wanted to go to the scene, obtained directions from them, and continued running towards the house. (Id.). Sgt. Slavin
had heard the previous radio transmissions, but was not aware of any operational plan, did not know how many officers were on the scene, and did not know if any officers had firearms at the ready or deployed. (Doc. 266-3, Ex. L-3 at 169–70). He made the decision to go to the scene on his own, passing through residential yards containing vegetation and cacti to reachthe house. (Id.)..."

"Neither Sgt. Slavin nor Sgt. Dorer warned David that they would shoot him if he did not comply with their commands, and both of them shot him in the back as he was walking away from them and towards the house. (Doc. 313-1, Ex. B at 57, Pospisil video). Sgt. Dorer, when asked if he ever perceived at any particular moment that David was going to “piledrive” D.H., responded, “I did not.” (Doc. 267, Ex. S at 44). Instead, he shot David “to prevent him from going back into the house.” (Id. at 43). When David was shot, he released D.H. as he collapsed and she fell forward onto the concrete walkway from a height of approximately six feet. (Pospisil video).

After David fell, officers converged on D.H. and David. (Pospisil video). Sgt. Dorer and Sgt. Slavin approached David on the ground; Sgt. Dorer ordered him handcuffed and Sgt. Slavin “ordered him to be dragged away from the scene.” (Doc. 269, Ex. PP at 145). Officer Deven Fellows and Officer Marcos Garcia handcuffed David and dragged him approximately 400 feet to where the medics were stationed. (Doc. 266-2, Ex. E at 136). The officers held David under his arms with his face pointed downward, so that his bare knees were in contact with the asphalt and gravel. The dragging resulted in “gaping wounds in David’s knees” that required extensive medical attention."

"The Ninth Circuit has written that summary judgment is rare in cases of police misconduct, because “police misconduct cases almost always turn on a jury’s credibility determinations.” Santos v. Gates, 287 F.3d 846, 853 (9th Cir. 2002) (emphasis added). This case is an exception to that general caution. Almost everything the officers heard was recorded and transcribed, and the shooting itself was recorded on video. The officers fired at an unarmed man who was walking away from them. Although he had issued threats against D.H. earlier, nothing he did after walking outside would suggest to a reasonable officer that he was placing D.H. in imminent danger of suffering any more harm than falling to the ground. By shooting David, the officers caused the very harm that a reasonable officer could believe that David posed to D.H. Considering “the totality of the facts and circumstances in the particular case,” no reasonable officer could have believed that shooting David without warning, while he calmly walked back towards his house with D.H. over his head, was a proper means of protecting D.H.’s safety. Blanford, 406 F.3d at1115...."

And the judge's order: 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 265) is granted in part and denied in part.

2. Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 271) is granted in part and denied in part.

3. The remaining claims are as follows:

A. On Claim One, summary judgment is entered for Plaintiffs.

B. On Claim Two, summary judgment is entered for Defendants on thehandcuffing claim and denied to both parties on the dragging claim.

C. On Claim Seven, summary judgment is entered for Plaintiffs on the warrantless search allegations. (Doc. 28 ¶¶ 290–296). Summary judgment is entered for Defendants on the judicial deception claim. (Doc. 28 ¶¶ 297–301).

D. On Claim Eight, summary judgment is entered for Defendant on the claims against Sgt. Slavin, and Lt. O’Halloran, and for Sgt. Dorer regarding the handcuffing. Summary judgment is entered for Plaintiffs against Sgt. Dorer regarding the warrantless search. Summary judgment is denied to both parties with regards to the dragging claims. Summary judgement is denied to both parties with regards to Sgt. Slavin.

E. Claim Nine(a) survives only with regards to the ratification claim (Doc. 28 ¶308) and is otherwise dismissed.

F. On Claim Nine(b), summary judgment is entered for Plaintiffs against Dorer and Slavin regarding the shooting. Summary judgment is denied to both parties regarding Officer Fellows’ and Garcia’s dragging David to the ambulance.

G. Claim Ten is dismissed.

H. Claim Eleven survives.

I. Claim Twelve survives

J. Claim Thirteen survives only with regards to Officer Greene and Sgt. Slavin, and is otherwise dismissed.

K. Claim Fourteen is dismissed.

L. Claim Fifteen survives.

4. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 333) and Motion for Certification of Issue for Interlocutory Appeal (Doc. 333-34) are both denied.

DATED this 6th day of August, 2012.

-------------

If David's family is out there reading this now, please get in touch with me - I want to connect you with folks who have been advocating for the mentally ill in the criminal justice system for awhile. They want to offer your family support. My name is Peggy Plews; my number is 480-580-6807; my email is arizonaprisonwatch@gmail.com

 

Prosecuting Innocence: The Scottsdale Police shooting of David Hulstedt

follow link to:

AUG 8, 2012: UPDATE on HULSTEDT v SCOTTSDALE 

Another victim of Scottsdale police violence has come to my attention this weekend, thanks to one of the local activists hot on the Scottsdale Police Department's tail, who posted the link to this guy's family's website to Facebook.

David has a psychiatric disability, according to court records, and was having a crisis at the time this all happened - they'll try to make that work against him, so don't let that keep you from supporting him. In fact, it makes it all the more imperative that the community embrace him and his family right now to assure that he's not further brutalized by the criminal justice system - at least, not without a world of witnesses. 

Let the following be a lesson to all who own a video camera - keep it out and use it whenever you see the police stop someone. You never know whose life you may save. If we're truly dedicated to fighting police brutality, the place to start would be to see him through the effort to criminally prosecute him after he filed suit against the bastards. 

If David or his family are out there and want some support from other folks who are fighting police and prison violence, let me know. My name is Peggy, my number is 480-580-6807

------this occurred in 2008. David's prosecution is on-going------ 

David Hulstedt: Victim of brutal misconduct by Scottsdale Police.

This is the story of David Hulstedt, the young man shot in the back as he walked away from officers Scottsdale, Arizona police officers on November 7, 2008. David, who was unarmed, and carrying his toddler, is now paralyzed. David's little daughter suffered a fractured skull when she fell to the ground. As widely reported in the media, Mr. Hulstedt was undergoing treatment for a mental health condition when he called 911 asking for help from the Arizona Governor. Instead of responding with calm and caring, a Scottsdale police dispatcher broadcast that there was a "crisis" at the residence, and that a little girl was crying in the background, and that his parents were trying to get the little girl away from David who was refusing to give back the baby.

That little girl was just David's daughter who was crying because she needed a new diaper.

The Inappropriate Police Response.

Within minutes, Scottsdale officers ordered David's parents out of the home. David repeatedly called his father, pleading for him to return to the house. His father asked to go back to the house but police would not let him. David also repeatedly called his brother, Eric. In the video to right, Eric explains that he asked police to let him go to his brother. Police refused. David’s father called his lawyer who tried to speak with David, until Police intervened and ordered him to stop.

As you'll hear and see through the video clips to the right, David's family urged the police to let them help David, but police refused. David said he would give his daughter to his brother. Time after time, the family made progress. But the police did everything the could to stop that progress, and even confiscated the cell phones being used by the family.  Police intentionally isolated David from the very support group that he needed. David was never armed. David never threatened police. David never threatened his family. Minutes after police took away David’s lifeline to his family, lawyer and minister, David in desperation allegedly told police: “If you don’t let my brother come inside, I’ll pile drive my daughter into the ground.” But David would not and did not do that. Over the next 20 minutes police negotiators told David that they were there to help him. They were not going to hurt him. They proclaimed themselves “professionals.” They guaranteed David that they would not hurt him. All he had to do was come out with his daughter.

He did.

The Shooting.

David walked outside the house and asked officers to back up. He wanted to go to his Dad. He wanted to go to the street to see his family, not knowing the family had been held in seclusion by Scottsdale Police. Four officers, staged immediately outside the front door, took a couple of steps back to give David some space.

Arizona police officers are trained to safely resolve problems with people in mental crisis by assigning one person to  calmly speak with the patient. Instead of following training, police yelled at David. He was given opposing commands to put up his hands, put down the baby. He was not told he was under arrest. Confused by the contradictory orders, David raised his daughter up over his head and began to walk to the street. He wanted to be with his family. David and the police negotiators wanted a peaceful resolution. As he walked to the street an officer armed with a military assault rifle yelled at him. From across the street another officer armed with an assault rifle joined in the chorus of shouts. David turned to go back to the safety of the home.

The two officers fired their military assault rifles striking David down after he took 3 to 4 steps back towards the home. He was immediately paralyzed and fell forward. David lost his grip on his daughter and she flew down hitting her head on the concrete front walkway. Police, unbelievably, then DRAGGED David's paralyzed body hundreds of yards over rocks and gravel, ripping through his skin, exposing bone. 

Police Claims.

Police  claimed that the baby was bleeding from her ear when David first walked out of the house. Police claimed they saw blood on the front of David’s shirt. Police claimed that the left side of David’s daughter’s face was deformed and there was blood mixed with mucous coming from her nose. Police claimed that the little girl slid down the front of David and fell from his knee. She fell, police claimed, on the gravel of the front yard. Police told the news media that blood was found inside of the house. Police told medical staff attending to both David and his daughter that David held the girl upside down and threatened to pile drive her into the ground causing police to shoot him. Police dragged David, paralyzed, more than 100 yards over rocks and rough terrain, ripping through his skin and exposing his kneecaps.

Police said David would be arrested when he recovered.  They asked the county prosecutor to charge David with kidnapping and child abuse.

 

Caught On Tape.

Police were unaware for almost two hours after the shooting that the family’s neighbor had videotaped the entire event, including David's attempt at surrender, and the shooting. There was no blood inside the house. There was no blood on the front of David’s shirt. His daughter was not bleeding from either of her ears. But because police told the hospital and Child Protective Services that the little girl was bleeding before David was shot, the little girl was subjected to full body scanning. That proved police fabricated their story. There was no evidence of abuse. 

David is a Victim.

Police have asked that David be criminally charged with aggravated assault, kidnapping and child abuse.  Scottsdale police department's claim that David injured his daughter inside the home was without a basis.  The former Maricopa County Medical Examiner commented that the daughter’s injury was consistent with being caused by falling to the concrete walkway.  The truth that she fell after her father was shot made its way into medical records, despite the false statements made by police officers.  And, the photographic evidence proves how she was injured.

David himself asked  the prosecutor’s office to tell a grand jury the facts, and asked that the two officers who shot him be charged.  Officers who were sworn to protect him, but instead fabricated a crisis situation, then shot him in the back multiple times, ripped skin from his knees -- clear to his bone --  left him paralyzed for life, then created a fictional account for the media about what happened.