Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence And Coordination Uni

954 F.2d 1054 (5th Cir. 1992)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Leatherman (P) and her son were driving in Fort Worth when they were suddenly stopped by police cars. They were surrounded, and the police were shouting instructions and threatening to shoot them. P was informed that police were searching her home and that they had shot her two dogs. They returned home to find one dog shot three times twenty feet outside the house and the other in their bed in a pool of bloodshot in the head at close range by a shotgun. The officers found nothing relevant to their investigation. The officers decided to have a party and lounged on the front lawn drinking, smoking, talking and laughing for at least another hour. The second incident was in the execution of a search warrant of Andert’s home because of odors suspected of being from amphetamine manufacturing. Andert was sixty-four and was mourning the death of his wife, and the officers did a no-knock entry and without provocation began beating Andert. Head injuries required 11 stitches. They shouted obscenities at the other family members and forced them to lie face down at gunpoint. They did not identify themselves as police officers and continued their verbal assaults upon the family. They left after 90 minutes, not finding any contraband. Ps sued Tarrant County Narcotics (D) and those county officials responsible for the conduct of the unit. They sued under 1983 and alleged that the officers were not properly trained, but there were no underlying facts other than a description of the events above. No officers were named. Ds moved to dismiss under 12(b)(6); the complaint did not meet the circuit court’s heightened pleading standard to establish that the governmental entities had adopted a policy or custom countenance of the conduct in question or that its failure to train amounted to a deprivation of their rights. The circuit court agreed with Ds and dismissed. Ps appealed.