Man wins $4M police brutality verdict against Clinton Township officer

• The officer responded to a non-emergency name about two individuals strolling by means of backyards.
• The protection argued that the usage of drive was cheap since Reiff resisted arrest, however a choose and jury disagreed.
• Reiff, who has a historical past of drug and psychological well being issues, suffered a number of facial fractures and everlasting blindness in a single eye.

Within the authorized system, marginalized individuals like Daniel Reiff do not stand an opportunity – the officer’s legal professionals argued.

He was a highschool dropout with an extended historical past of drug and psychological well being issues and had been out and in of psychiatric hospitals. He left residence in his teenagers, developed a style for heroin, was repeatedly arrested, typically turned homeless and was convicted thrice for resisting and obstructing police.

So when he landed a plaintiff in a police brutality lawsuit — he misplaced an eye fixed after being hit by a cop — the protection tried to get the cost dismissed, insisting that the officer was protected by immunity and that there was no method Reiff may persuade a jury to award him something substantial.

The choose disagreed. The jury thought so too.

On December 15, a federal jury in Detroit awarded Daniel Reiff $4 million, concluding {that a} Clinton Township police officer violated Reiff’s rights when he hit him so exhausting that — as a medical professional testified — his eye was “squeezed shut like a grape.” At situation on this case is that Reiff was neither arrested for a severe crime nor pursued resulting from an emergency. Information present {that a} neighbor referred to as the police as a result of he noticed two “youthful wanting kids” strolling by means of individuals’s backyards and that one thing was “off.”

Extra: Mario Inexperienced will stand trial for the homicide of his ex-wife at Henry Ford Hospital

Extra: Can Detroit put an finish to minor site visitors stops? Cities in Michigan present a street map

A kind of “youngsters” on the time was 32-year-old Reiff, who initially fled from police however was ultimately arrested by an officer who chased him and shouted, “Whoo, child, I’ll taser you, man.” After catching up, the officer punched him within the face, inflicting him to lose an eye fixed.

‘Thank God for the body-worn digicam’

“Thank God for the body-worn digicam. You possibly can hear the influence,” Reiff’s lawyer, Michael Jones, advised the jury in his opening assertion.

Reiff by no means testified on the trial. Relatively, he managed to persuade the jury – with out ever taking a stand – that he had accomplished flawed by means of a number of consultants testifying on his behalf – and the ugly images of his lacking eye proven to the jurors.

As his lawyer argued to the jury, “Simply since you’re pissed off or aggravated, you should not use drive to punish somebody. As a result of in the event you do, that is what occurs,” Jones mentioned as he held up a poster board displaying Reiff’s disfigured face.

Reiff additionally suffered a number of facial fractures and now has everlasting {hardware} and screws in his face.

“The protection advised us {that a} jury would by no means admire Daniel Reiff’s life or accidents due to who he’s… eight residents mentioned in any other case,” mentioned the plaintiff’s lawyer, Jon Marko, whose legislation agency represented Reiff. “They despatched a robust message that constitutional rights belong to everybody – and that when an officer crosses the road, the group will maintain them accountable.”

In keeping with Marko, “the entire theme of the trial was centered on Dan” – his previous drug dependancy, his psychological well being points and even his accidents.

“It was a method to disgrace victims by saying he wasn’t price as a lot as you and I due to who he was and the way he lived,” mentioned Marko, who insisted the protection additionally used Reiff’s accidents towards him. “They mentioned he wore a bandana over his eye as a badge of honor. They victimized the sufferer much more. However we mentioned his life additionally has that means and worth.”

Protection: He ‘actively’ resisted arrest

Legal professional Raechel Badalamenti didn’t reply to requests for remark. In courtroom paperwork and at trial, she argued that Reiff ran from officers close to a drugstore after they tried to arrest him, crossed six lanes of the busy Metropolitan Parkway and was practically hit by a truck, jumped two fences and “actively” resisted arrest when police lastly caught up with him on the third fence, telling an officer, “I took a ton of medication.”

Badalamenti portrayed the case as a traditional he-she-she-said story involving a adorned police officer she described as a household man and devoted public servant, and a “reckless” drug addict with a historical past of operating from police.

“He led a reckless life. He isn’t a household man. He has loads of issues … and he has abused heroin, fentanyl, cocaine, prescribed drugs and alcohol,” Badalamenti advised jurors in her opening assertion, noting he was 16 when the drug abuse started.

“He by no means had a gentle job his entire life,” Badalamenti continued. “…He dropped out of college as a result of he was doing medicine and ingesting. And he had loads of issues. Psychological well being issues… And he was operating from the police… He lived a reckless life-style, however you are advised he is (the) equal of the little woman shoplifting or the jaywalking man getting beat up by the police. That is not what we now have right here.”

In keeping with courtroom paperwork, depositions and trial testimony, that is what occurred:

In April 2021, Reiff was trying to do some freelance roofing work when he and his coworker stopped on the coworker’s home to select up some instruments. As they walked by means of the neighborhood, a neighbor turned suspicious and referred to as the police, reporting that she didn’t acknowledge the 2 “younger-looking kids.”

When police arrived on the coworker’s residence, Reiff determined to depart and stroll to the close by bus cease. Ultimately, one of many first officers on the scene caught up with Reiff and tried to speak to him. Reiff took off operating.

As U.S. District Decide Laurie Michelson wrote in her order bringing the case to trial, “This case is about what occurred subsequent.”

In keeping with trial testimony, the next occurred:

Clinton Township Police Officer Broc Setty – who was a reserve officer that day – obtained out of his automotive and chased Reiff by means of the neighborhood. He lastly reached Reiff and grabbed his shirt when the pair tripped over a fence. Reiff advised the officer he was “accomplished” – he was not attempting to flee.

“That is probably the most essential a part of the entire case. He says, ‘I am accomplished. I quit,'” Jones advised the jury.

However Officer Setty would not hear, Jones mentioned. As an alternative, the officer maneuvered Reiff so he was on his arms and knees and repeatedly yelled for Reiff to lie on his abdomen, he mentioned. When Reiff didn’t comply, the officer grabbed Reiff’s wrist, twisted him and punched him within the face, rupturing his eyeball and inflicting everlasting blindness.

A lawsuit adopted.

Officer Setty, who has since been promoted to sergeant, didn’t reply to requests for remark.

Clinton Township, which was eliminated as a defendant from the lawsuit, continues to be hanging on the $4 million judgment if it holds up on enchantment. Town didn’t reply to requests for remark. Neither does the police chief.

Protection: ‘The only assault… was an inexpensive use of drive’

The protection argued that the officer didn’t violate Reiff’s constitutional rights when he arrested him, and that police had no method of understanding what he was planning on doing, why he was operating or what he was allowed to do within the situation he was in.

The protection additionally argued that there was just one punch, and that “the one strike (which the officer used) was an inexpensive use of drive beneath the circumstances as a matter of legislation.”

Earlier than the case went to trial, the protection had argued that the officer was protected by what is named certified immunity. This protects the police towards frivolous lawsuits and ensures that they’ll do their work with out fixed concern of lawsuits. It additionally helps police motion in nerve-racking conditions and permits them to make selections based mostly on their coaching and instincts.

That’s what the officer did on this case, the protection argued. However the choose concluded that the officer went too far and referred the case to courtroom.

Decide: Plaintiff was not armed, ‘was terrified’

Reiff finally pleaded no contest to a cost of resisting and obstruction after his arrest within the case. However the choose concluded – by taking the case to trial – that his plea was not related to the trial. Relatively, the query is whether or not the officer had cause to imagine that Reiff had dedicated a severe crime that will justify the extent of drive he used.

“He didn’t do this,” Decide Michelson wrote in her August opinion.

In keeping with courtroom information, at no level throughout the arrest did the officer see Reiff attain for any weapon, and at no time did Reiff hit, yell or threaten the officer.

“If something,” the choose wrote in her opinion, “video footage and Reiff’s statements recommend that Reiff was merely terrified throughout the interplay.”

And the officer, the choose continued, admitted that he ‘didn’t assume (his) life was in peril at the moment’… Nonetheless, (he) nonetheless selected to hit Reiff within the eye exhausting sufficient to trigger everlasting blindness.”

And whereas Reiff did certainly run from the officers, the choose provides that when he was caught, he “tried to make it clear that he was surrendering” and raised his arms and mentioned, “I am accomplished, I quit.” “

‘Nobody is disposable’

The protection claims the officer’s physique digicam footage reveals Reiff pulling away from the officer, inflicting the officer to fall to the bottom. It additionally reveals Reiff attempting to ram the officer together with his shoulders, staying on all fours, breaking a wristlock and “even getting right into a standing place to take out (the officer) on his knees.”

“It merely doesn’t matter that Reiff mentioned he was giving up,” the protection wrote, “when his actions have been the alternative.”

Nonetheless, the choose famous that she watched the video and didn’t see what the protection mentioned occurred.

And so she despatched the case to trial, concluding that as a result of “Reiff had not dedicated a severe crime… didn’t pose a right away risk and didn’t actively resist arrest,” the officer “used an unconstitutionally unreasonable quantity of drive throughout Reiff’s arrest when he struck Reiff within the eye, rupturing Reiff’s eyeball.”

The eight-person jury agreed and awarded Reiff $4 million in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages.

“This verdict is about accountability and equal justice beneath the legislation,” Jones mentioned. “This was a non-emergency name. There was no justification for what occurred. The jury made it clear that nobody is disposable, that nobody is beneath the Structure, and that law enforcement officials usually are not given a carte blanche to make use of drive out of anger or frustration.”

Contact Tresa Baldas: tbaldas@freepress.com