Konie v LA

There has been some minor activity in the Konie v LA case; that's the one wherein Patricia Konie, little old lady, is suing numerous jackbooted thugs for breaking down her door, harming her person, and violating her civil rights by confiscating her firearm. 

It's just the preliminaries.  On 12/16/05, the summons was served upon the State of Louisiana, through its representative Kathleen Blanco, through her representative Terri Ricks.  This is basically notifying the recipient that there is a lawsuit pending, and it demands a response within 20 days or a default judgement will be entered against the defendent.  This didn't get entered into the docket until 1/9, so it's clear there's a substantial delay operating.

The defendents (Louisiana and California) missed the deadline to respond.  It was not until January 11th, 2006 that they finally filed their response, which itself was a motion for extension of time to plead, requesting an extension of 20 days to respond.  The only interesting point to note is that the response, filed on behalf of both the LA and California, claims that their police departments were erroneously sued as separate entities.  It's one of those legal details that I can't nitpick much about for lack of expert knowledge.  I don't expect it to become a serious issue in the case, in any event, though (if the states are correct) it may reflect a bit poorly on Konie's advocate.  We'll see. 

Aside from the fact that the response was filed 6 days after the deadline, there's no reason to refuse it, and in fact the court granted the motion within two days, which makes the new deadline the 23rd of January, 2006.

Jerry the Geek questions another Geek (with a .45) about the injuries allegedly sustained by Patricia Konie when she was recently jackbooted, noting that the woman on the video is able to lift her dog into a vehicle, and questioning whether she could have been injured as badly as claimed in the lawsuit.

I don't have any more information than what's in the lawsuit, but I do understand a little bit about the nature of lawsuits.  First, the text quoted in my own post on the story is from the complaint in the lawsuit; that's important, because it means the account therein was written by Konie's lawyer, and it was written to establish two things: the legal basis for Konie's claim for damages, and the extent of those damages. 

Generally, courts do not issue awards randomly.  They are usually based some combination of actual damages (eg, costs incurred in healing the injury, medical care, repairing or replacing property, etc), punitive damages (awarded without a showing of cost, to discourage violations), and legal fees (because the injured party should not have to pay their lawyer if the other party is clearly in the wrong -- the lawyer's fees are another cost to repair the original injury, except that they are not always awarded). 

So when you file your initial complaint, you are looking to establish from the beginning the extent of the damages your client suffered, if not necessarily a precise accounting at that stage.  You're going to have a hard time convincing the court to order damages for injuries that magically appear later on in the case, so you include everything you think you might claim eventually.  Most likely that's all that's going on here.  If the complaint says the injuries "may" require surgery, what he's really saying is that they haven't required surgery yet, but that they might. 

Since the complaint was filed towards the end of November, and the press release is datelined mid-December, I'd say that the injuries did in fact require surgery between the time the complaint was filed and the press released issued.  Since the press release is considerably more detailed about those injuries than the complaint, I'd say there are good odds that the medical care obtained in the meantime helped to diagnose the injuries that had been inflicted.

I don't know anything about dislocated shoulders, never having had one, but hypothetically, if I was being "evacuated" and one of my shoulders was dislocated, I would be lifting animals with the other arm.  Just something to bear in mind.

It seems that Patricia Konie, who was tackled by a cop on national TV as they "evacuated" her from her home in New Orleans, has decided to sue.  I don't blame her.  In addition to confiscating her legally-owned firearm, they broke and dislocated her shoulder. 

Hat tip on this one to The Smallest Minority, Ravenwood, SaysUncle, Standard Mischief, and the Geek.  But if they are going to beat me on timing, I'll have to swamp them with details... 

Luckily, the Louisiana Courts have the appropriate infrastructure for me to offer detailed ongoing coverage of this case.  I was able to obtain the complaint in PDF format, though I won't be posting that as it contains the plaintiff's home address.  However, there are some damn good quotes therein, and I will gleefully excerpt those.  Here's the meat:

On September 8th, 2005, defendants, acting under color of State law in an official capacity, and in violation of federal and state law, wrongfully trespassed on premises legally occupied by plaintiff at [address withheld], and committed the following additional torts against plaintiff, her person and her property:

a) Assault and battery, including using excessive force under the circumstances;

b) False imprisonment by illegally taking plaintiff into custody and transporting her to South Carolina, from which she did not return to New Orleans until October 13th, 2005;

c) Intentional infliction of emotional distress; and

d) Conversion of legally owned property, to wit, a chrome 32 caliber Colt Revolver, with a pearl handle, which has not been returned to plaintiff.

By virtue of having committed the above-identified torts against plaintiff and her property, defendents violated rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to plaintiff under the Second, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, all in violation of 42 USC 1983.

In addition, certain of the defendents conspired to deprive plaintiff of rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed to plaintiff by the United States Constitution, all in violation of 42 USC 1985.

Further, certain of the defendants, who had full knowledge of their colleagues' conspiring to violate, and actually violating, plaintiff's constitutional rights, and committing torts against plaintiff's person and property, failed to intervene, all in violation of 42 USC 1986.

Defendants' acts and omissions were practiced with malice and/or with reckless disregard for plaintiff's federally protected rights, as well as her rights under state law.

As a direct result of the above-described tortious and illegal conduct by defendants, plaintiff sustained severe and disabling personal injuries, including injuries to her face, nose, left eye, left shoulder, left arm, and chest, among other injuries to her mind and body, for which surgery may be necessary, and causing plaintiff excruciating pain, suffering, mental anguish, humiliation, and embarassment.

Y'know, just as a hunch, I don't think letting the news cameras in to record the incident was wise of the officers involved.

The defendents in the case are:

1. The State of Louisiana and its agency and instrumentality;
2. The Louisiana State Police;
3. The State of California and its agency and instrumentality;
4. The California Highway Patrol; and their employees.

The identities of the specific defendants are not known (cited as John Doe and Richard Roe).

Folks, we have a jackbooted-thugs-gun-confiscation case headed to court with a sympathetic plaintiff making 2nd Amendment claims.

Let me say that again.  The significance may not be immediately clear.

WE HAVE A SECOND AMENDMENT CLAIM AGAINST  JACKBOOTED THUGS KICKING DOWN DOORS AND CONFISCATING LEGALLY-OWNED FIREARMS FROM LITTLE OLD LADIES ON CAMERA.

Why, yes, I will be following this case in detail.

And speaking of which, the complaint (which was filed 11/30/2005) is not the only action in the case.  The court has issued a summons for the defendants.

The case is before Judge Martin Feldman and Magistrate Judge Daniel Knowles III.

UPDATE: There is still video of the incident available, and The Smallest Minority has some more information about Konie's choice of legal counsel.