|
Jury Rules in Favor of Town in Bail Bondsman Case
By Michael C. Juliano
Article Launched: 11/30/2007 09:33:45 AM EST
On Monday, a federal jury in Hartford returned a verdict in favor of the Town of Westport, the Westport Police Department, two Westport police officers and a local bail bondsman in a lawsuit arising out of an allegedly unlawful entry and search of a Westport home in 2002.
Larry and Mary Tirreno sued Barbara Mott, a Norwalk bail bondsman, claiming she and two bounty hunters -- John Poole and Dennis Phang -- who were hired by her, illegally entered their home shortly after 11 p.m. on Easter Sunday in search of a then-28-year-old fugitive James Jerome Freeman.
In a press release given to the Westport News on Tuesday, Robert Laney, Mott's lawyer, said, "The overwhelming evidence in this case established that none of the Tirrenos' rights were violated because they voluntarily consented to the search requested by the bail enforcement agents."
According to a "verdict form" from the U.S. District Court, the jury found that the Tirrenos did not prove that "the warrantless search of their house violated the Fourth Amendment."
Following the verdict, John Tower, the Tirrenos' attorney, said Freeman never entered the Tirrenos' home.
"The case helped reinforce the long-established rule that bondsmen and bounty hunters have the right to enter and search the homes of people who are fugitives," he said. "The responding Westport police officers testified that they did not know of this rule prior to the events at issue in the case. While the Tirreno family was disappointed in the jury's finding the warrantless search did not violate the family's Fourth Amendment rights, they have no regrets in seeing this case to verdict."
A call to Andrew Dewey, Mott's lawyer, was not returned as of press time.
According to a July 18, 2003, story in the Westport News, police officers Donald Rice and Walter Broadhurst, who is no longer with the department, were also named as defendants in the lawsuit.
Laney further states in the press release that "there was no showing at all that any of the police officers involved violated any department policy, regulation or statute, and that claims that Officers Rice and Broadhurst in any way violated the Tirrenos' rights were, as the jury found, totally without any basis in fact."
The story states that after the March 31, 2002, search for Freeman, who was involved in a relationship with the Tirrenos' daughter, Paulina, who was 17 at the time, Mott, Poole and Phang reportedly "continued to harass, stalk and intimidate the Tirrenos" by, among other things, following them as they drove on public roadways, calling them at home and at work and calling their co-workers.
Consequently, the Tirrenos reportedly suffered, among other consequences, "extreme fear for their safety and well-being, immediate emotional distress, shock, apprehension, humiliation and anxiety, an unlawful home invasion" and "an unlawful infringement of rights protected by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."
The story also reported the Tirrenos would not let them in, but that Mott, Poole and Phang insisted they had the legal right to enter and search the house for Freeman, with or without their consent. The Tirrenos claimed they had no right to enter the home because they did not have a search warrant or a court order authorizing them to do so.
The story also reported that the Tirrenos called the police, and the responding officers -- Rice and Broadhurst -- said Mott, Poole and Phang had the legal right to search for Freeman. Reportedly, Larry Tirreno reluctantly allowed them to search their home after the officers said they would assist the agents in entering and searching the home.
The lawsuit claims Poole and Phang "exceeded the necessary and reasonable scope" of search for human beings by disturbing personal possessions and effects, including jewelry boxes, laundry hampers, dressers and other things in searching for information that might lead to Freeman's whereabouts.
In the story, Poole said that much of what the Tirrenos state in the lawsuit was false, that the agents would not look in places where a 6'3" man could not hide, such as a jewelry box, and they were there because they had received information that Paulina Tirreno was letting him stay there and was helping him financially.
_________________
Do not consider anything for your interest which makes you break your word, quit your modesty, or inclines you to any practice which will not bear the light, or look the world in the face .... Marcus Antonius
I AM Some Folks "KARMA" and A MODERATOR @ FRN
|
