The Eugene Register-Guard reports that Lane County has agreed to accept a judgment against itself for $20,000, to settle the lawsuit against it and a former deputy sheriff for violating a Creswell Middle School student’s rights by coercing him to falsely confess to shooting a neighbor’s dog.
The lawsuit was filed by the father of Levi Dunn on his son’s behalf in February 2010. It named Creswell School District and two employees as well as Lane County and a then-deputy sheriff.
In December, Creswell and its two named employees agreed to accept a judgment against itself for a total of $22,000.
Levi's Attorney C. Michael Arnold said that Levi and his father chose to file this lawsuit for two reasons: to clear Levi’s name, since he was still being picked on and called “dog killer” even after the juvenile case against him was dismissed; and to deter law enforcement from engaging in these misguided interrogation tactics in the future.
According to Arnold, “There are clear guidelines set by the Oregon Attorney General on how to interview a child witness, to protect the child from being unduly influenced and making statements that aren’t true. Child witness statements are even video recorded. Why aren’t these same guidelines in place for children accused of crimes? Aren’t child suspects as vulnerable to influence as child victims?”
The answer is “yes,” says Arnold, which is why Levi would only settle his case if a judgment was entered against the defendants. This allows for future victims of heavy-handed interrogation tactics to have definitive proof that this issue has been resolved in favor of another child, giving them a leg up in research and investigation. Typically, lawsuits are settled with a release of claims and a dismissal of the lawsuit, Arnold stated. Both the district and county could have attempted to negotiate a dismissal and a release of claims. However, here a judgment will be entered similar to what would have happened if the case went to trial and Levi won any of his claims.
Arnold explains, “From our perspective this case settled the way it did for the same or simi
lar amount of damages as if we went to trial and prevailed with a jury. A judgment is in place and Levi’s name is cleared. And, the defendants had to pay a considerable sum of money, which hopefully will have a deterrent effect on other government agencies who engage in this sort of conduct at the expense of citizen rights and at the expense of the truth. The message should be clear: ‘Obtaining false confessions may make an investigation quick and easy, but it will eventually catch up with you.’”
Arnold’s law firm has also placed a model school district policy on their website to encourage parents to lobby their district’s policy committee to draft policies that protect their children. It can be found at www.ArnoldLawFirm.com.
The lawsuit was filed by the father of Levi Dunn on his son’s behalf in February 2010. It named Creswell School District and two employees as well as Lane County and a then-deputy sheriff.
In December, Creswell and its two named employees agreed to accept a judgment against itself for a total of $22,000.
Levi's Attorney C. Michael Arnold said that Levi and his father chose to file this lawsuit for two reasons: to clear Levi’s name, since he was still being picked on and called “dog killer” even after the juvenile case against him was dismissed; and to deter law enforcement from engaging in these misguided interrogation tactics in the future.
According to Arnold, “There are clear guidelines set by the Oregon Attorney General on how to interview a child witness, to protect the child from being unduly influenced and making statements that aren’t true. Child witness statements are even video recorded. Why aren’t these same guidelines in place for children accused of crimes? Aren’t child suspects as vulnerable to influence as child victims?”
The answer is “yes,” says Arnold, which is why Levi would only settle his case if a judgment was entered against the defendants. This allows for future victims of heavy-handed interrogation tactics to have definitive proof that this issue has been resolved in favor of another child, giving them a leg up in research and investigation. Typically, lawsuits are settled with a release of claims and a dismissal of the lawsuit, Arnold stated. Both the district and county could have attempted to negotiate a dismissal and a release of claims. However, here a judgment will be entered similar to what would have happened if the case went to trial and Levi won any of his claims.
Arnold explains, “From our perspective this case settled the way it did for the same or simi
lar amount of damages as if we went to trial and prevailed with a jury. A judgment is in place and Levi’s name is cleared. And, the defendants had to pay a considerable sum of money, which hopefully will have a deterrent effect on other government agencies who engage in this sort of conduct at the expense of citizen rights and at the expense of the truth. The message should be clear: ‘Obtaining false confessions may make an investigation quick and easy, but it will eventually catch up with you.’”Arnold’s law firm has also placed a model school district policy on their website to encourage parents to lobby their district’s policy committee to draft policies that protect their children. It can be found at www.ArnoldLawFirm.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment