Security chiefs will have to fend off a federal lawsuit against police

The commissioner of the Negotiated by the Police, Henry Escala, As well as other high-ranking officers of the Uniformed, will not be protected by so-called “qualified immunity” to face a federal lawsuit for excessive use of force against a citizen during the May 1, 2018 demonstration.

Scale and other officials answered the lawsuit Wednesday, after the federal judge Jay García Gregory determined that the lawsuit filed by Yadira Carrasquillo González will continue to contain sufficient allegations of violations of constitutional rights.

Garcia Gregory noted that “the request to dismiss based on qualified immunity is denied. The facts alleged by the plaintiff present a violation of rights under the “First and Fourth Amendments” to the United States Constitution.

“Moreover, freedom of expression and the right to be free from excessive use of force are clearly established rights,” he added.

The term “qualified immunity” refers to the protection that law enforcement officers have against demands to perform their official functions.

Represented by the American Union of Civil Liberties (ACLU, for the acronym in English), Carrasquillo González filed a lawsuit against Escala, the former secretary of the Department of Public Safety (DSP), Héctor Pesquera, And the then governor Ricardo Rosselló Nevares, As well as other officers who were in charge of police operations during the demonstration.

Carrasquillo González was captured in photographs and videos of multiple people watching a police officer spray pepper spray on the woman’s face, who was alone and unarmed, while shouting slogans in the middle of Avenida Luis Muñoz Rivera in Hato Rei .

“One of the green-clad officers grabbed her and pushed her. Subsequently, another green-clad officer threw pepper spray or another chemical in her face for a long distance at a close and dangerous distance,” the lawsuit said. ‘Carrasquillo González, who identifies himself as a veteran of the Iraq War as a member of the United States Armed Forces.

“The assaults on the plaintiff renewed the post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) that the plaintiff had suffered from her active service in the Armed Forces,” he adds.

A motion on behalf of several of the defendants responded by stating that none of them is noted in the lawsuit as “having participated in the physical / verbal intervention that allegedly resulted in the deprivation of the defendant’s constitutional rights.”

He adds that the lawsuit fails to expose sufficient liability to the defendants, in their capacity as supervisors, for the damages suffered.

For its part, the federal judge determined that the claim for financial compensation requested by Carrasquillo González did not apply on the part of the Government of Puerto Rico, because the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution does not permit it under the present circumstances.

However, Garcia Gregory determined that he could meet the declaratory and interdict remedy claim, as well as the request for financial compensation in the defendants’ personal capacity.

The lawsuit calls for a preliminary and permanent injunction to be issued to “prohibit defendants and police officers from re-engaging in this illegal and unconstitutional conduct.”

It also calls for an order for the Puerto Rican government to negotiate an amendment to the Police reform with the United States Department of Justice to incorporate a permanent civilian oversight mechanism into the Uniformed, which would “allow independent citizens to oversee police practices,” as in other policing reforms.

“The plaintiff has filed sufficient liability claims against the co-defendants,” Garcia Gregory said in his order to continue the case.

Referring to existing laws and other cases, the judge stressed that “supervisors may be liable on the basis of their own acts and omissions.”

He added that this required that “one of the subordinates of this supervisor limit the constitutional right of the plaintiff” and that “the action or inaction of the supervisor was affirmatively related to this behavior, in the sense that it could be characterized as an approval, pardon or consent or gross negligence equivalent to deliberate indifference “.

“A defendant must not personally participate in an alleged constitutional violation in order to have a liability,” the judge stated.

Garcia Gregory also referred to the case of police reform, recalling that the U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit and lawsuit had left Uniformed aware of an overuse pattern of force that presents “a high risk of harm to any citizen intervened by the police.”

“Moreover, the lawsuit alleges that the defendants failed to meet the risk of implementing and enforcing the terms of the Agreement (for Reform),” the judge stated. “That’s enough to survive the dismissal stage.”