ILNews

7th Circuit affirms ruling for officers on excessive force claims

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found no reason to disturb a judgment in favor of several officers involved in a standoff and shooting death of a Fort Wayne man in 2005. Rudy Escobedo’s estate challenged the jury verdict and summary judgment for the defendants on excessive force claims.

In the early morning of July 19, 2005, Rudy Escobedo became suicidal and ingested cocaine. After calling his sisters, he called 911 to report he was suicidal. He barricaded himself in his bedroom in his 7th floor apartment in Fort Wayne. Officers tried to negotiate Escobedo out of his apartment to no avail. Eventually, a tactical team, knowing Escobedo was armed, threw several cans of tear gas into his apartment and entered his apartment. The officers threw two flash-bang devices in the apartment, with one thrown into his bedroom. The police believed Escobedo was going to shoot based on his actions in the bedroom, and two officers opened fire, killing him.

Escobedo’s estate sued the city of Fort Wayne and several of the officers involved. After a variety of motions were filed and a partial summary judgment was granted and appealed, the case went to trial on the excessive force claims, and the jury found in favor of the defendants. The District Court also granted judgment as a matter of law in favor of the defendants after the jury entered its verdict.  

Escobedo’s estate appealed on several grounds, including that the 7th Circuit should reverse the grant of judgment as a matter of law to the defendant commanders on qualified immunity grounds because the court improperly weighed evidence and concluded that Escobedo posed a threat to the public. The estate cited the 7th Circuit’s opinion involving this case from 2010 that upheld denial of qualified immunity to the defendants on their motion for summary judgment.

“However, facts emerged at trial that caused the district court to conclude that ‘the police had a much greater concern that Escobedo was an imminent threat to others,’ thus changing its conclusion on the qualified immunity question,” Judge Daniel Manion wrote. “When we affirmed the district court’s summary judgment ruling, the facts concerning the degree of danger Escobedo presented were not nearly as developed as they were after trial.”

In its 45-page opinion released Thursday, Estate of Rudy Escobedo (deceased) (Raquel Hanic, Personal Representative of Estate) v. Officer Brian Martin, et al., 11-2426, the 7th Circuit found the District Court did not improperly admit evidence unknown to the officers at the time they used force against Escobedo; that the court committed harmless error when it prohibited the estate from introducing evidence at trial of Escobedo’s death for purposes of calculating damages; there was no error in granting judgment as a matter of law on qualified immunity grounds to the defendant commanders nor to officer Scott Straub; and that the District Court did not err when it granted summary judgment in favor of officers Brian Martin and Jason Brown on the estate’s excessive force claim for shooting Escobedo.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Poppycock!
    Where was the evidence o0f alcohol other than the testimony of the cops who backed each others story, imagine that! It is time to rein in thug cops that tell the difference between a intoxicated person and a medical issue and it is time for the courts to stop protecting these thugs that think martial law has been declared in America and that a badge is a license to break the law!

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. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT