ILNews

Occupy Kokomo protesters file suit against Howard County sheriff for civil rights violations

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Occupy Kokomo protesters filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the Howard County sheriff and members of the sheriff’s department, claiming violations of their civil rights.

The legal action stems from a melee in late 2011 that erupted after two of the protesters informed Sheriff Steve Rogers that the Occupy group would not be protesting at the Howard County Courthouse that day. In the complaint, the two protesters, Darren Burke and Gregory Lambert, both residents of Marion County, assert they were assaulted by the sheriff and his deputies and then falsely arrested and imprisoned.

Burke and Gregory claim the sheriff and his deputies violated their Fourth Amendment rights by employing excessive force in arresting them and by arresting and detaining them without probable cause.

The case, Darren Burke and Gregory Lambert v. Steve Rogers, et al., 1:13-CV-825, was filed by the ACLU of Indiana in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Indiana.

“Most law enforcement officers serve bravely and admirably to protect us and preserve the peace,” ACLU of Indiana executive director Jane Henegar stated in a press release. “However, when these public servants abuse the trust and power, we, as a people have given them, the ACLU will stand up to correct the wrong. In a free and democratic society, no person should be subjected to brutality and abuse at the hands of our government.”

Members of Occupy Kokomo had been protesting at the county courthouse during the last week of 2011, generally staying on the east steps of the building and the lawn. On Dec. 30, 2011, Burke, Lambert and some other members entered the courthouse to tell Rogers and his staff that the protesters would not be demonstrating that day.

Burke and Lambert then turned to exist the building, and the sheriff began walking away. However, another protester, David Fox, asked the sheriff about a court order issued the previous day in Howard Superior Court that prohibited anyone wearing a mask from entering the courthouse.

As Fox was questioning Rogers, the sheriff told Burke to remove the dollar bill which he had taped over his mouth as a sign of protest. At this point, according to the complaint, Rogers attempted to remove the dollar bill from Burke’s face, then the sheriff deputies shoved Burke against the wall, tackling him to the ground and handcuffing him.

The complaint also asserts that Lambert was shoved so violently against a wall by Lt. Kurt Goerges of the Howard County Sheriff’s Department that Lambert suffered a concussion and lost consciousness.

A video was taken by the protesters of the incident. The complaint notes the picture becomes blurred and difficult to follow but the audio is still decipherable.

Lambert and Burke were retained for seven hours and 30 hours, respectively, at the Howard County Criminal Justice Center before being released on bail. Both were charged with resisting law enforcement as a Class A misdemeanor. Additionally, Burke was charged with false informing as a Class B misdemeanor.  

Charges remain pending, although both Burke and Lambert have entered into pretrial diversion agreements under which charges will be dismissed if they comply with the conditions for six months.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT