Register for RSOL 2015 National Conference "Untold Collateral Damages" June 25-27

May 29, 2015

Dennis Hastert Promoted Himself As Crusader Against Sexual Abuse of Children

How did the Adam Walsh Act get enacted in 2006, and who will it apply to today?
5-29-15 Washington DC

Nine years before being indicted on financial charges -- reportedly an attempt to cover up sexual misconduct involving a male high school student -- Dennis Hastert spent his last few months as House speaker alternately promoting himself as a defender of child welfare and fending off accusations that he helped cover up another Republican's gay sexual misconduct scandal.

In July 2006, shortly before Democrats won the midterm congressional elections and ended his speakership, Hastert spearheaded a bill to toughen punishments for sex crimes against children. The legislation, named after the abducted and murdered Florida boy Adam Walsh, passed the Republican-controlled House unanimously. In a statement at the time, Hastert said protecting children from predators was as high a priority for him as national security -- this, post-9/11 and during two wars.

"At home, we put the security of our children first, and Republicans are doing just that in our nation's House,” he said. “We've all seen the disturbing headlines about sex offenders and crimes against children. These crimes cannot persist. Protecting our children from Internet predators and child exploitation enterprises are just as high a priority as securing our border from terrorists.”

The biography of the former speaker at the website of Wheaton College's Hastert Center for Economics, Government, and Public Policy states that during his three terms in the Illinois Legislature, Hastert "spearheaded legislation on child abuse prevention." During his 20-year congressional career, Hastert supported legislative initiatives to deter and punish sexual abuse of minors, including the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Amendments of 1996, the Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act of 2000 and the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.

In his press release touting the last initiative, Hastert specifically touted its provisions “improving sex offender registration and notification programs, enhancing law enforcement resources, preventing child exploitation, stopping child pornography and creating new criminal offense penalties protecting children from the Internet.”

Among the members of Congress who publicly thanked Hastert for championing the bill was Florida Republican Mark Foley. Only months later, Foley’s sexually suggestive text messages to underage congressional male pages would become a scandal for Hastert, who some say ignored the situation and did not take fast enough disciplinary action.

In that sordid affair, some congressional Republicans suggested that Hastert did not adequately respond to concerns -- long raised privately -- about Foley’s behavior. A former Foley aide said that long before the allegations became public, he alerted “senior staff at the highest level of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene,” but Hastert’s office did not respond. Hastert denied that accusation, but later acknowledged that his office had been contacted about the matter a year before it became a public scandal. ..Continued.. by Matthew Cunningham-Cook

Read More of Article...

With body on the floor, suspects in Belfair homicide came back the next day to steal items

5-29-15 Washington:

SHELTON — A man being held on suspicion of murder for shooting a Belfair man last weekend told investigators he had accused the victim of being a pedophile and, when confronted, the victim lunged at him so he shot him in the head.

Daniel A. Dunn, 35, of Belfair, also is believed to have returned to Charles Albion Austin’s residence the next day, Sunday, and taken a number of items. Christopher G. Redfern, 27, of Port Orchard, also was arrested in connection with Austin’s death, although Dunn told investigators Redfern was not involved in the shooting.

Austin, 51, was found by a neighbor Monday at his residence on the 100 block of Southridge Drive in Belfair.

Although Dunn said he told Austin he intended to call police to report him for “weird” conversations, when investigators asked why Dunn didn’t go to police to report the shooting, Dunn said he didn’t want to go to jail.

Clues left at Austin’s house led investigators to Dunn and Redfern, said Mason County Sheriff’s Detective Bill Adam.

Neither man has been charged in Austin’s death. However, they appeared Thursday in Superior Court, and Judge Toni Sheldon found probable cause to hold both. Sheldon set $1 million bail for Dunn and $500,000 for Redfern, said Prosecutor Mike Dorcy.

Dorcy said he would file charges Friday or Monday. Prosecutors have 72 hours after booking, not including weekends, to file charges. An arraignment for the two is scheduled for June 8.

Dorcy said he plans to charge Dunn with first-degree murder, first-degree burglary and theft of a firearm. As of Thursday afternoon, Dorcy said he believes he will charge Redfern with the burglary and theft charges but likely not the murder charge. Both men said Redfern was outside in a truck when the shooting occurred.

“Not that he’s out of the woods,” Dorcy said of Redfern. “But I don’t know if we have enough to charge him with (murder) yet.”

Dorcy said other potential charges were trafficking in stolen property, as one or both of the men is suspected of selling items believed to have been taken after Austin’s death.

Dunn said the three had been target shooting Saturday on Austin’s property.

“(Dunn) had told Austin he intended to call the police concerning the weird conversations he’s had with Austin,” according to a statement given by Dunn on Wednesday, the day he and Redfern were arrested. “Dunn said.

Austin lunged at him from the couch and Dunn pulled the trigger. Dunn thought Austin might have a gun.”

No gun was found in the residence, and no records of Austin being convicted of a sexual assault were found in a search of Washington court records.

With Austin’s body on the floor, the two returned the next day, according to documents, and took numerous items, included a .22-caliber rifle, power tools, a number of marijuana plants, handcuffs and restraints, and various other items.

Dunn told investigators he covered Austin’s body with a blanket “because he felt badly and didn’t want to see Austin like that,” according to documents. by Andrew Binion

Read More of Article...

Police swarm Waukegan home of registered sex offender on prank 911 call

5-29-15 Illinois:

Police converged on a Waukegan apartment earlier this week after a chilling 911 call was made by a man claiming he had stabbed a woman, bound her and was holding her hostage with a shotgun, according to police.

On Tuesday morning, police closed down the area around the 1700 block of Sunset Avenue before officers armed with AR-15 rifles forced their way inside, Waukegan Police Chief Wayne Walles said. it turned out the 911 call was a false report, summoning police to the apartment of a registered sex offender.

"This is similar to what they call 'swatting,'" said Walles, who likened the call to a prank. "But we're not sure what this was and that's why we are investigating."

Authorities called the SWAT team, but officers at the scene were sent into the apartment instead, equipped with their street rifles, Walles said

The 911 call was placed at 11:13 a.m., police said, and the male caller told a dispatcher he had his girlfriend tied up in the apartment. He also said he had stabbed her twice and claimed that he had a shotgun, according to Waukegan Police Lt. Edward Fitzgerald.

An officer spoke to the man for several minutes before he hung up. The 911 dispatcher could not re-establish contact.

"Fearing for the safety of the alleged victim, officers made forced entry to the apartment to rescue the victim," Fitzgerald said. Officers discovered there was no victim upon entering the apartment.

There were two men inside the apartment, including David McMurray, 54. From his third-floor apartment window, he was able to see the officers armed with rifles and police cars blocking Sunset Avenue, McMurray said.

"I stepped outside onto the front porch and a cop with (a rifle) pointed at me, was coming up the stairs and he told me to get back into my home," he said.

McMurray said he locked the door behind him and turned on his TV to see if a news broadcast had any information about the situation. His roommate, Travis Weatherhead, 30, was sleeping after working a night shift.

Minutes later, police used a battering ram to break open their front door and a back bedroom window to gain entry, the roommates said.
"Next thing I know officers are pointing rifles at me in bed," Weatherhead said. "They were yelling 'hands where I can see them.'" Officers quickly determined there was no hostage or criminal activity.


Downstairs neighbors Clarence Mays and Frederick Coffey, both 24, said they watched the commotion and videotaped some of it.

"It was crazy sick," Coffey said. "We heard a lot of sirens and looked out the window. Police told us to stay inside.

"It got real. I got nervous because of my kid," he added, referring to his 4-year-old son.

Mays likened the situation to the video game "Call of Duty," but "in real life."

"There was a bunch of guns pointed at the building," Mays said.

Both McMurray and Weatherhead left with police and returned a few hours later.

McMurray, who was wearing a T-shirt with a Superman logo on the front, said he was taking the situation in stride.

"Someone made a prank call. Someone has it out for me or Travis," he said as building management were cleaning up the broken glass, fixing the front door and installing plywood where the bedroom window was broken out.

McMurray said police played them the 911 call to see if they recognized the voice. The caller used two names that were familiar to them, McMurray said.

"It could be that I'm a sex offender, to give me grief," said McMurray, explaining that he is registered as a sex offender and is on probation for a child pornography charge.

"I'm just going to let it roll over my shoulders," he said as he walked into his bedroom where glass littered the carpet. "What a mess I have to clean up and I'm a barefoot kind of guy.

"Sex offenders have this happen, I'm not going to let them win," McMurray added. "I'm not angry, not upset. I'm just glad no one got hurt." by Frank S. Abderholden

Read More of Article...

May 28, 2015

Recidivism

Growing is the list of “unchangeables” from the perspective of our society.

--Terrorists do not change, we are told. They can never be rehabilitated. Lock them away forever.
--Bullies do not change, we are told. It’s better not to trust them.
--Failed cities and their inhabitants do not change, we are told. That’s just the way that neighborhood is. Let the police clamp down on it as much as they can and keep those people over there.
--Sexual offenders do not change, we are told. Register them. Monitor them. Never give them a break.
--Sexual orientation and gender identity do not change, we are told (expect, that is, to leave heterosexuality in favor of homosexuality). Once you’re born that way (which is a political tautology, not a scientific discovery), you’re stuck there forever.
--Substance abusers are always going to go back to the booze or the dope. It’s just too hard to beat.
--Give a job to an ex-con? You’ve got to be kidding! He’s just going to wind up in prison again.
…and the list goes on. Ours is a people who generally believe in the inevitability of recidivism (relapse into a former bad way of life).

But a lot of the “facts” upon which we base our perspectives may not be factually sound. People speak pretty frequently about the recidivism rate among sexual offenders, for example, leaving the impression that sex offenders are far more likely to re-offend than are criminals of other types.

That’s actually not true. Thieves have a higher recidivism rate than sex offenders. So do drug users, prostitutes, and murderers (in addition to the preceding link, here are some supplemental data from one state that corroborate the NIJ statistics). Now, it is true that convicted sex offenders are more likely to commit another sex offense than a former bank robber is likely to commit a sex offense (duh).

Yes, the former bank robber, if he commits another crime, is likely to rob a bank again rather than sexually assault someone. But the Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics reported: ..Continued.. by Bart Barber

Read More of Article...

Woman convicted of sex on Manatee County beach to be released from jail

Absolute proof the registry is totally useless and Judges and Lawmakers have lost their minds as to who belongs on the registry. Its impossible to tell the good guys from the bad guys. i.e., who is dangerous? See also From Beach Sex to Public Urination: 9 Insane Things That Will Get You Labeled a Sex Offender
5-28-15 Florida:

BRADENTON — A woman who was convicted of having sex on a local beach will not spend any more time in jail. On Wednesday, a Bradenton judge sentenced 20-year-old Elissa Alvarez to time served.

Alvarez and 40-year-old Jose Caballero were found guilty May 4 of lewd and lascivious exhibition for having sex in public, including in front of a 3-year-old child.

The Bradenton Herald ( tbtim.es/iws) reports that Alvarez accepted the stat-recommended sentence during a hearing scheduled to discuss setting a sentencing date. Defense attorney Greg Hagopian said she is embarrassed by the incident.

Alvarez, who's been in custody since May 4, was released Wednesday evening. Because she doesn't have a criminal record, her conviction was withheld. She still must register as a sex offender unless she appeals.

Caballero will be sentenced July . ..Source.. by Tampa Bay Times

Read More of Article...

May 27, 2015

Out of Prison, Out of Luck

5-27-15 New Jersey:

When the test of innocence is withheld.

Dion Harrell was released from New Jersey state prison nearly two decades ago, but he still maintains that he was not the man who raped a 17-year-old on her way home from work in 1988. Three days after the assault, the victim saw Harrell in the parking lot of the McDonald’s where she worked and called the cops. Police arrested him, and she told police he was the stranger who had attacked her that night. Based largely on the victim’s identification, Harrell was convicted of second degree sexual assault in 1992 and given eight years in prison. He was paroled after serving four, but he is sentenced to remain on the sex offender registry and under community supervision for the rest of his life.

In November 2014, the Innocence Project petitioned the Superior Court of New Jersey in Monmouth County to analyze the contents of the rape kit again, using DNA technology that was unavailable at the time of Harrell’s trial. But Monmouth County Prosecutor Christopher Gramiccioni initially refused. Under the New Jersey statute, only those who are currently in prison have access to DNA testing. “Defendant’s sexual assault conviction is 22 years old,” Gramiccioni wrote in January. “The State believes the conviction is entitled to finality.”

Thirteen other states have similar laws, declaring that only those still serving time are eligible for post-conviction testing. But cases like Harrell’s have spurred defense attorneys and some state lawmakers to call for a change in policy, claiming that the consequences of a wrongful conviction continue long after a prisoner is set free. In late April, Montana signed a new law extending DNA testing to those already released. State legislators in New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Oregon are considering similar measures.

“Because [Harrell] has been released from prison he no longer has the right to demand testing of evidence that might clear his name – and possibly identify the true perpetrator,” said New Jersey state Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, in a statement. “That is an awful contradiction that our laws present to prosecutors.”

In states with such “incarceration requirements,” it is not impossible for someone already released to obtain DNA testing, but it is far more difficult. Prosecutors can always choose to grant tests; but in states like New Jersey, they can also refuse on the grounds that an already freed offender is ineligible.

In February, Monmouth County Prosecutor Gramiccioni changed his mind and ultimately agreed to test the sperm sample in Harrell’s case, after local media attention and an appeal by Harrell’s lawyers. “While Dion Harrell was released from prison more than a decade ago and is no longer serving a term of imprisonment, it is nonetheless in the interest of justice to consent to Mr. Harrell's motion for post-conviction DNA testing due to the unique facts and circumstances of his particular conviction,” prosecutor Gramiccioni said in a statement. The Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office did not respond to a request for comment. Test results are pending.

Those in favor of changing the law say offenders released from prison need to be explicitly granted the right to request a new DNA test. “[The law] has to be clear...You cannot just rely on the goodwill of prosecutors,” said Innocence Project senior staff attorney Vanessa Potkin, who is representing Harrell. “The people who really need DNA testing to prove innocence are people convicted in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s, before the current DNA technology existed.”

Some prosecutors disagree with the proposed change and say that expanding access to testing will overburden the courts. In a testimony before the Oregon state legislature, district attorney Rod Underhill said that the current law was a “reasonable limitation.” In Oregon, only those convicted of aggravated murder or a sex crime may currently request DNA testing after getting out of prison. “The proposed expansion...creates a net result of significantly greater expense, more significant time demands and also represents an unjustified assault upon conviction finality,” he wrote.

In many states, the defendants themselves must pay for DNA testing unless they are indigent. Roughly 42 percent of the post-conviction DNA tests requested by the Innocence Project confirmed guilt, 43 percent proved the defendant’s innocence, and 15 percent were inconclusive.

The only physical evidence used to convict Harrell in 1992 was the blood type of the semen recovered after the attack, which matched his own. But it also matched the victim’s — information that was not presented to the jury in the original trial. The two kinds of DNA analysis that could identify a perpetrator in the case became available in New Jersey in 1999 and 2006, years after Harrell was released from prison.

Harrell wrote to the Innocence Project in 2002. But because of their backlog (they are currently evaluating 6,000 to 8,000 cases), it was more than a decade before attorneys took on his claim. While he waited, Harrell’s lawyer, Potkin, said he struggled to find a job because of his conviction and was temporarily homeless. He is now unemployed. Harrell’s attorneys said he was unavailable for comment because of his pending case.

Of the Innocence Project’s current 244 cases, 12 involve people who are no longer in prison. And across the country, only 23 people have been exonerated by DNA testing after their release. “We’re really talking about a small universe of people, but it’s an important group that deserves the opportunity to clear their name,” said Rebecca Brown, policy director for the Innocence Project. It is particularly important, she said, for those on the sex offender registry.

Ted Bradford was exonerated of rape and burglary based on DNA evidence in 2010, five years after he was released from prison. Because he was convicted in Washington State — which does not require someone to be in prison to access DNA testing — he was still able to prove his innocence after he completed his sentence.

Bradford said he did not know about the Innocence Project’s Northwest Clinic until five years into his 10-year sentence. Even after they took on his case in 2002, it took until 2007 for them to identify available evidence and complete multiple rounds of advanced testing. While there was no physical evidence presented at Bradford’s initial trial, lawyers ultimately discovered sweat cells on a mask worn by the attacker that were not Bradford’s.

In prison, Bradford maintained his innocence and refused to participate in sex offender therapy. That meant he was released as a level 3 sex offender, the most restrictive tier. Flyers with his name and conviction were posted at every school and daycare center in his hometown of Yakima, Wash., including the schools where his two children were enrolled. The local newspaper ran several stories about the convicted rapist returning to the neighborhood.

“If it wasn’t for my ability to get the testing done after my release... I would still have to register as a sex offender, I would still have to report my address, I would still have this conviction on my record,” Bradford said. “The nightmare would have continued.” by Christie Thompson

Read More of Article...

May 26, 2015

When is it entrapment?

5-26-2015 National:

This is a very interesting question posed to us by a reader.

Is it entrapment if the police are asked by a registrant, beforehand, to verify that a residence is in compliance with law, and police refuse to check (or tell registrant they are not responsible for doing that) then registrant moves in and police then say he is in violation of the law?

Definition:
In criminal law, entrapment is a practice whereby a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit a criminal offense that the person would have otherwise been unlikely to commit.[1] It is a conduct that is generally discouraged and thus, in many jurisdictions, it is a possible defense against criminal liability.

Depending on the law in the jurisdiction, the prosecution may be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped or the defendant may be required to prove that they were entrapped as an affirmative defense.

So the question is: Does a refusal -by police- to answer allow registrant to raise the issue of entrapment?

Thats the question we are asking folks to chime in on...please cite cases if you have them. Mere opinion is not really helpful, we are looking for authority.

Then if the registrant did move in, and it was entrapment, what happens next?


Consider the following


What is the defense of entrapment by estoppel?
This defense focuses on the actions of government officials and not on the predisposition of the accused. In order to successfully assert this defense, one must actually rely on a point of law misrepresented by a government official and such reliance must be objectively reasonable given the identity of the official, the point of law misrepresented, and the substance of the misrepresentation. The misrepresentation must be made directly to the accused rather than to others.

This defense exists where a government official tells the accused that certain conduct is legal, the accused relies on that representation in engaging in that conduct, and the accused is then later prosecuted for engaging in that conduct.


Entrapment by Estoppel
Entrapment by estoppel requires one to establish (1) that a government official told him the act was legal; (2) that he relied on the advice; (3) that the reliance was reasonable; and (4) that, given the reliance, prosecution would be unfair. See United States v. Smith, 940 F.2d 710, 715 (1st Cir. 1991).


When must a defendant raise issue of entrapment?
Where a defendant does not assert that his "guilty plea was involuntary" or "that it was made with a misunderstanding of the nature of the charge or the consequences of the plea," a plea of guilty waives all defenses. United States v. Davis, 452 F.2d 577, 578 (9th Cir. 1971). It also waives "all nonjurisdictional antecedent rulings and cures all antecedent constitutional defects." United States v. Lopez-Armenta, 400 F.3d 1173, 1175 (9th Cir. 2005). Defendant has not asserted his plea was involuntary or that he did not understand its consequences. Accordingly, defendant's plea of guilty to the charges waived any defenses he may have had thereto, including the defense of entrapment.

Read More of Article...

Is It Time to Revisit Sex Offender Supervision for Life?

5-26-15 National:

In the mid-1990s, Americans were shocked by several high-profile child victim sex offenses. In New Jersey, the abduction, rape and murder of seven-year-old Megan Kanka by a paroled sex offender who lived across the street horrified the state and spurred action by elected officials and state agencies.

In less than four months (warp speed for legislative processes), a package of bills was drafted, passed and signed into law.

These bills, known collectively as Megan’s Law, included sex offender registration, community notification based on risk level, DNA testing, exclusionary zones, enhanced sentences, post-incarceration civil confinement, and probation/parole supervision for life. As the technology developed, GPS monitoring was added to the community supervision for life in New Jersey and many other states.

With the exception of DNA testing, none of these provisions had any empirical evidence to support their effectiveness as public policy. This was, however, no deterrent to the rapid and widespread adoption of similar legislation by states, with the active encouragement of the federal government. It was clear that citizens, legislators and governors felt the urgent need to do something to protect vulnerable children from sexual predators.

These laws had intuitive appeal, and that was sufficient to justify their enactment..

While a few legal and policy advocates objected to some of the laws, citing the negative impact of exclusionary zones on the ability to find appropriate housing, of community notification on the ability to find and maintain employment, and the unfairness of civil commitment after a sentence of incarceration had been served, their objections had little impact—especially for civil commitment after the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act in 1997 in Kansas v. Hendricks.

Subsequent research has called into question the effectiveness of other aspects of Megan’s Law, including registration and notification, residence restrictions, enhanced sentences, and revised parole polices. (But as is so often the case, the evidence or lack thereof for the efficacy of a particular public policy has little impact on the longevity of that policy.

One popular policy is lifetime supervision with GPS monitoring. There is some indication that the Supreme Court may join the debate on this issue. The Court recently sent a request for appeal back to the North Carolina Supreme Court with instructions for further consideration and development of a detailed legal record about the case and the issues raised.

The case deals with an appeal to the Supreme Court by a sex offender who was placed under lifetime GPS supervision. The North Carolina courts rejected the sex offender’s appeals that the GPS monitoring was an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court’s per curium opinion in that case, Grady v. North Carolina (seems to indicate that the Court thinks that GPS monitoring is a search, and thus governed by the case law related to the Fourth Amendment and the prohibition on unreasonable searches. The Court recently ruled in U.S. v. Jones that the police practice of attaching a GPS monitoring device to a car without a warrant constituted a “search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” ..Continued.. by William D. Burrell who is a regular blogger for The Crime Report. An independent corrections management consultant specializing in community corrections and evidence-based practices, he spent 19 years as chief of adult probation services for the New Jersey state court system, and taught (2003-2007) in the Department of Criminal Justice at Temple University in Philadelphia. He welcomes readers’ comments.

Read More of Article...

May 24, 2015

Inmate Claims Jailers Encouraged Beating

5-24-15 California:

FRESNO, Calif. (CN) - Sheriff's deputies in California's Central Valley opened a cell door to let inmates join in the beating of an alleged child molester, the man claims in court.

Carlos Carrasquilla sued Tulare County on May 13, alleging assault and battery, failure to intervene and constitutional violations.


Carrasquilla, who had no prior criminal record, was arrested by Exeter police in 2014 on a warrant from Los Angeles County stemming from an alleged incident of inappropriate contact with a minor 12 years ago. The accuser was in her late 20's when she made her claims, the complaint states.

Carrasquilla, then 54, was booked into Tulare County Jail to await transfer to Los Angeles County.

Within two days of his jailing, Tulare County sheriff's officers "began a concerted effort to disclose and to otherwise make it known to the general population of inmates that plaintiff was a 'child molester,'" the complaint states.

Carrasquilla claims the deputies posted paperwork stating the charges against him where other inmates could read it and talked about the charges in front of other inmates.

Deputies did this knowing that such allegations were "tantamount to a free invitation and suggestion to the inmate population to beat, punish, abuse and otherwise subject plaintiff to physical abuse and beatings and the potential of death," the complaint states.

The inmates taunted and berated Carrasquilla for being a "child molester," and on July 20, 2014, two days after he was jailed, 16 inmates attacked him in his 16-man cell, the complaint states.

"They used fists, feet and hands and whatever else they could in a protracted beating. At one point, the cell door was opened by one or several of the defendant Doe deputies to allow other inmates to join the beating. During the beating, the inmates taunted plaintiff with the documents provided by defendant deputies, calling him a 'child molester' and a 'child rapist,'" according to the complaint.

The deputies let the beating go on unabated, leaving Carrasquilla with a bloody face from an open, gaping wound to his head, and bloodied eye sockets, he says.

Carrasquilla says that the deputies knew he was injured but did not call medical aid or provide their own aid. He received minimal medical care for the next three days until he was transferred to the L.A. County Men's Central Jail, where he had to undergo surgery for facial fractures, the complaint states.

Tulare County performed a "shoddy and incomplete" investigation of the incident, finding no witnesses and calling the beating a fight, Carrasquilla says. He claims the deputies were never punished.

As a result of the beating, he suffers from persistent vertigo, impaired vision, and skull misalignment, which all cause him severe emotional and physical pain, he says.

Carrasquilla seeks $15 million on eight claims, including unlawful use of force, Monell liability, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. His wife seeks damages for loss of consortium.

They are represented by Hermez Moreno, of Woodland Hills, who did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Nor did Tulare County.

Carrasquilla is in custody at L.A. County Men's Central Jail awaiting trial, with bail set at $550,000. His next court date is July 16. ..Source.. by ELIZABETH WARMERDAM

Read More of Article...