Police attorneys seek dismissals of civil rights suits

Kim Smith

Friday, July 23, 1999 | 10:50 a.m.

Attorneys representing Sheriff Jerry Keller and Metro Police have asked that two unrelated civil rights lawsuits be dismissed.

In motions filed Thursday in U.S. District Court, the attorneys said neither plaintiff has sufficient evidence to prove that the police department has customs or practices in place that endorse the civil rights violations alleged in the lawsuits.

According to court documents, Daimon Monroe Hoyt filed a lawsuit against Keller and other members of the police department claiming that corrections officers slammed and kicked him around after he was booked into the Clark County Detention Center on burglary charges in July 1996.

Hoyt claimed in his lawsuit that the police department has a policy of failing to investigate complaints or discipline its officers, court records show.

Keller's attorney, Thomas Dillard, wrote in his motion to dismiss that "an investigation was undertaken, the plaintiff is simply dissatisfied with the result."

Dillard also said the lawsuit has no merit because Hoyt would be unable to prove that "Metro's failure to discipline its officers was so pervasive and widespread that the unknown correctional officers assaulted the plaintiff because they knew the policy existed and Metro would not hold them accountable for police misconduct."

There is also no evidence Keller personally violated Hoyt's rights, Dillard wrote.

In the second case, Danny Ray Shumate sued the police department, claiming that an unknown canine officer used excessive force during his October 1996 arrest on assault charges.

According to court documents, Shumate said that just before he was handcuffed, the officer placed his foot or knee on his lower back.

Defense attorneys Walter Cannon and Peter Angulo, in their motion to dismiss, stated that Shumate can't prove "it was excessive force or the type of force that could cause permanent or lasting harm or damage."

The attorneys also said Shumate will be unable to prove that the alleged civil rights violation was part of an "official plan, policy, custom or scheme."