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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT