![]() Making News Stuffing the Ballot Box? |
Flyer Sues the City for Full Disclosure in Lawsuitby Phil Campbell
On September 17th, the city settled with relatives of Adam Pollow, a University of Memphis student who, four years ago, was allegedly the fatal victim of a hog-tie by police officers. A hog-tie is a type of restraint in which a person's hands and legs are tied together behind his or her back, similar to trussing up an animal. The police department has since banned the practice, which can sometimes induce asphyxiation. In early January of 1993, Pollow was a patron at Bennigan's in East Memphis. During his dinner, he began choking on food. The restaurant manager called police to complain that Pollow was "under the influence of drugs." Police arrested him shortly after arriving at the restaurant. He was struck with a nightstick and shoved in the back of the squad car, the suit claims. He was later hog-tied, despite the fact that he had been vomiting. According to the suit, he was unable to lift his head from his own vomit, and consequently began choking on it. The Pollow family claims the arresting officers ignored Adam Pollow's pleas for help. He was placed on life support and died three days later. According to the autopsy report, no drugs or alcohol were found in Pollow's body. He had a bruise on his skull, but no bones were broken. The autopsy ruled that he had died of choking on his own vomit. The city settled with the family shortly after the trial began. The details of the settlement have been kept confidential. It's uncertain how much the Pollow family might have won either in a jury trial or an out-of-court settlement. If the lawsuit had been filed in a state court under claims of negligence, caps on tort awards would have meant the family only could have won $130,000. However, this case was filed as a civil-rights action in federal court, where no such caps exist. The Flyer tried a number of avenues to obtain access to the information before seeking disclosure through legal action Tuesday morning. One of the first actions it took was to request the information in writing, citing the Tennessee Open Records Act and the Federal Freedom of Information Act as legal supports to its claims. Open-records laws, or sunshine laws, are intended to make public records accessible to both the public and the media, which, in the eyes of the law, is not granted any special treatment separate from the general public. Sunshine laws work like this: If a particular type of public document or record is not given a specific exemption under the law, it is presumed to be open for public inspection. Court settlements made by municipal bodies are not specifically exempted under the law. Flyer editor Dennis Freeland says the city has a responsibility to make the settlement details public. "This case involves allegations of police brutality and public money," he explains. "There is no question in our minds that the settlement should be part of the public record." Interim city attorney Kenneth McCown responded in writing that, "under both the settlement agreement and the order of the court, all parties are prohibited from releasing the terms of the settlement." Part of McCown's statement -- "order of the court" -- seems to contradict U.S. District Judge Julia Gibbons, who presided over the case. Responding to a letter hand-delivered by the Flyer, Gibbons wrote: "In the letter you say, this case was settled with details of the settlement sealed under court order. I am not sure where you obtained your information but this is incorrect. The settlement agreement is not a part of the court records." The Flyer also waited a week to see if incoming city attorney Robert Spence would disclose the information. The answer was still no. "What we feel like is that we're living up to the terms of the other parties, which is enforced by the court's order," assistant city attorney Ronald Wyatt said Monday. Randy Fishman, the Pollow family attorney, told the Flyer he wasn't sure how family members felt about disclosure, but "until the agreement is modified, we're not going to be found to be in breach of the agreement." |