Chiefs of security will have to defend themselves against a federal lawsuit against the police

The Commissioner of Police station, Henry Escalera, as well as other senior officers of the uniformed, will not be protected by so-called “qualified immunity” from a federal lawsuit for overuse of force against a civilian during the demonstration on May 1, 2018.

Escalera and other agents answered the lawsuit on Wednesday, after a federal judge Jay García Gregory has determined that the lawsuit filed by Yadira Carrasquillo González will continue as it contains ample allegations of violations of constitutional rights.

García Gregory pointed out that “the request for dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity is denied. The facts presented by the prosecution constitute a violation of the rights under the “First and Fourth Amendments” of the US Constitution.

“In addition, freedom of expression and the right to be free from the excessive use of force are clearly established rights,” he added.

The term “qualified immunity” refers to the protection law enforcement officials have from lawsuits for the performance of their official duties.

Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU, for the acronym in English), Carrasquillo González has filed a lawsuit against Escalera, the former secretary of the Ministry of Public Security (DSP), Hector Pesquera, and then governor Ricardo Rosselló Nevares, as well as other officers in charge of police operations during the demonstration.

Carrasquillo González was captured in photos and videos of several people watching a police officer spray pepper spray on the face of the woman, who was alone and unarmed, shouting slogans in the middle of Luis Muñoz Rivera Avenue in Hato Rey.

One of the green-clad cops grabbed her and pushed her. Then, at a short and dangerous distance, another officer has another officer dressed in green-fired pepper spray or some other chemical on his face for a long time, ” says the trial of Carrasquillo González, who identifies himself as a veteran of the Iraq War as a member of the armed forces. of the United States.

“The attacks against the prosecution have prolonged the post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) suffered by the prosecution through her active service in the armed forces,” he adds.

A motion on behalf of some of the defendants responded stating that none of them is identified in the lawsuit as having “participated in the physical / verbal intervention that allegedly resulted in the deprivation of the defendant’s constitutional rights”.

It adds that the lawsuit does not show defendants sufficient responsibility, in their capacity as regulators, for the harm suffered.

For his part, The federal judge ruled that the claim for financial compensation was filed by Carrasquillo González on behalf of the government of Puerto Rico, as the eleventh amendment to the constitution does not allow this under current circumstances.

However, García Gregory decided that he could attend the claim for declaratory relief and court order, as well as the request for personal financial compensation from the defendants.

The lawsuit calls for a preliminary and permanent injunction to “prohibit the accused and police officers from participating again in this illegal and unconstitutional conduct”.

It also calls for an order for the government of Puerto Rico to negotiate an amendment to the Police reform with the United States Department of Justice to include a permanent civilian oversight mechanism in the Uniformed, allowing “independent citizens to monitor police practices”, as in other police reforms.

“The plaintiff has made enough liability claims against the co-defendants,” said Garcia Gregory in his order to continue the case.

Referring to current laws and other matters, the judge stressed that “supervisors can be held accountable based on their own actions and omissions.

He added that this requires that “one of that supervisor’s subordinates restrict the complainant’s constitutional right” and that “the supervisor’s acts or omissions were affirmatively related to that behavior, in that it could be characterized. as an approval, waiver or consent or gross negligence amounting to willful indifference ”.

“A defendant does not have to personally participate in an alleged constitutional violation to be liable,” the judge said.

Likewise, García Gregory was referring to the police reform case, recalling that the U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit and court case had made uniformed police aware of a pattern of excessive use of force that risked harm to any citizen affected by the police are intervened ”.

“In addition, the lawsuit alleges that the defendants did not address the risk of implementation and enforcement of the terms of the agreement (before the reform),” the judge said. “This is enough to survive the layoff phase.”