welcome back to the civil rights lawyer channel where the mission is to not just expose civil rights violations by government officials but also and more importantly to inform and educate individual citizens on their constitutional rights and how to hold those officials accountable in court today i want to tell you about a case that happened in virginia that's gone all the way through to a jury verdict award i'll share with you the documents that i've obtained so so this is more than just look what happened cops bat this is showing you the facts the lawsuit the court order applying the law to the facts and also the end result with the jury verdict i want to share content with you like this with you so that you can educate yourself on your constitutional rights as well as the process for enforcing them in court this is the real world stuff that they don't teach you in law school if you enjoy this sort of content i encourage you to subscribe as there's more in the works every day today's video is about matthew suter who owns a farmhouse in the plains virginia he ended up being unlawfully arrested and tased by police officers in his front yard stick with me for just a few minutes and i'll tell you about his interaction with the police from the beginning all the way until last week's jury verdict in alexandria virginia in federal court back in november of 2018 he rented a bedroom and bathroom in his home to melissa johnson following a dispute about her cat and apparently an electric hot she went to a local court and obtained an ex-parte emergency protective order against mr suiter which restricted him from quote acts of violence force or threat of criminal offenses resulting in injury to person or property of miss johnson so the next day november 10 2018 johnson called the [ __ ] [ __ ] here i don't know how can mess that one up county sheriff's office and reported that the plaintiff had violated the epo by terminating the electric and water service to her bedroom and bathroom she spoke with a deputy who took her complaint and classified it as a quote civil matter not satisfied with that she called again later the same day this time speaking with a different deputy who ended up being a defendant in this case because he was dangerously incompetent he ended up applying for an arrest warrant against mr suiter alleging that there was a violation of this epo when in fact there was no violation or any reason for him to believe that mr suiter had committed any crime but he obtained an arrest warrant so this deputy and his supervisor and i think one other officer then traveled to mr suiter's home with an arrest warrant the deputy seized mr suter i spoke with mr suter on the phone and he denies resisting this arrest however in a subsequent ruling the federal court wrote that it was undisputed that he resisted arrest this is what the court found specifically plaintiff resisted arrest and did not permit the officers to handcuff him the officer officers then wrestled the plaintiff to the ground while plaintiff continued to resist the officers mccauley then used that's the officer a taser to subdue the plaintiff after plaintiff was tased the officers were able to handcuff the plaintiff so he was taken he was tased multiple times he was bleeding he was taken to a local hospital emergency room now whether he resisted or not you'll see what happens with the federal court because the federal judge says it doesn't matter the officers subsequently charge suiter with the underlying epo violation as well as attempted fleeing from a law enforcement officer the epo charge ended up being dismissed by the prosecutor prior to trial and then he was found not guilty of the fleeing charge following the criminal trial then suitor filed a federal section 1983 civil lawsuit you'll find a copy of that complaint at the blog post attached to this video at the blog at the civil rights lawyer.com so fast forward in the litigation and something pretty unusual ended up happening the federal judge judge ellis you may have heard of him in the eastern district of virginia not only denied qualified immunity to the officers but he granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff that means that the court found that mr suter's civil rights were violated as a matter of law and that the only issue for the jury to decide at trial is the amount of money to be awarded so why did the officers here lose qualified immunity as well as the opportunity to even oppose liability in front of the jury in short because they acted with such utter incompetence the fourth amendment protects against protects against citizens being unlawfully arrested by law enforcement an unlawful arrest is one that occurs in the absence of probable cause police officers can be held civilly liable for this sort of unlawful or false arrest if it would have been clear to reasonable officers in their position that they lacked probable cause to arrest the officers aren't required to be actually correct in their probable cause determination but just reasonable in their determination and i'll post the court's full opinion on this matter at the blog post in this case all the officers knew is the allegation that the plaintiff had cut off miss johnson's water and electric service allegedly and he denied that according to his affidavit that was submitted to the court now there was no reasonable basis for them to conclude that mr suiter had engaged in any act of violence force or threat against miss johnson thus if they believed that the plaintiff had done any of those acts such a belief would have been clearly erroneous and therefore unreasonable the arrest warrant the officer obtained alleged violation of some domestic violence type of protective order which didn't even exist in this case no domestic violence protective order had been issued against the plaintiff and that would have been obvious on the face of the actual epo document that had been served on the plaintiff moreover even if the plaintiff had been served with a domestic violence type protective order cutting off water and electric still does not constitute an act of violence as defined by this epo so therefore the plaintiff's conduct could not have led any reasonable law enforcement officer to conclude that there was probable cause to arrest the plaintiff in this situation thus they violated his constitutional rights when they unlawfully arrested him and then used force to effectuate that arrest in the absence of probable cause the court held that the illegality of this arrest tainted these police officers subsequent actions and rendered them liable for using excessive force on the plaintiff when they arrested him so under federal law the fourth amendment prohibition on unreasonable seizures bars police officers from using excessive force to seize a free citizen let's fast forward to the trial results the jury ended up awarding a total of fifty thousand dollars in compensatory damages to mr suiter i obtained a copy of the jury verdict form i'll post that up on the blog as well in my phone conversation with mr suiter he was actually very unhappy with this verdict both in the amount of fifty thousand dollars compensation as well as the lack of any punitive damages award from the jury he took issue with how the presentation of the damage's claim was presented to the jury at trial so for many reasons people many times have unrealistic expectations on the value of damages that can be awarded or will be awarded or is likely to be awarded in civil rights cases at the end of the day a jury decides these things this can vary wildly depending on a number of factors including the personalities of the parties as well as the personalities of the jurors themselves now i wasn't at this trial obviously so i have no idea what dynamics were present in the courtroom during the trial but that this illustrates one of the difficult parts of the job of a civil rights lawyer ultimately you have to convince at the end of the end of the day a jury to award money damages and how do you do that it can be very difficult it's sometimes emotion or appealing to emotion is all that you have there's a form instruction in these cases that says something to the effect of if you find that the plane of civil rights were violated you must at least award one dollar even if you find that the plane have suffered no actual damages so the value of constitutional injuries can vary wildly depending who you have on that jury but there's also a federal law 42 usc section 1988 which provides for an award of reasonable attorneys fees following a finding of liability this means that even if a jury awards only a dollar there could potentially be an attorney fee award of six figures so as always thanks for watching you'll find more information in the link below to the blog at civilrightslawyer.com if you have a video you want me to see please use the submission link in the description or at the blog if you want to learn more about these cases and about your constitutional rights please subscribe and hit the bell notification so you don't miss updates of future videos please also comment with your thoughts about this case do you agree or disagree with the jury's verdict amount in this case if you want to support the channel please consider clicking both the join button and becoming a channel member or sponsor remember freedom is scary deal with it i'll see you next time you