Louisiana Voice

There’s an old axion that says justice delayed is justice denied and in the case of a number of citizens of Evangeline Parish, the expression has never been more accurate.

A federal judge dismissed a class action lawsuit against the Evangeline Parish Sheriff’s Office and the Ville Platte Police Department after ruling that plaintiffs waited past the prescription date to file their action, thus shielding law enforcement from any responsibility for blatant violations of basic civil rights.

First, a little background:

The Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department in 2016 delivered a REPORT that concluded that there is reasonable cause to believe that both the Ville Platte, Louisiana Police Department (VPPD) and the Evangeline Parish Sheriff’s Office (EPSO) “engaged in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional conduct” that dates back “as far as anyone (at either department) can remember.”

The 17-page report went on to say, “Both VPPD and EPSO have arrested and held people in jail—without obtaining a warrant and without probable cause—in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.  We have additional concerns that these unconstitutional holds have led to coerced confessions and improper criminal convictions. These findings reflect the results of an investigation into both agencies, which have engaged in nearly identical practices within overlapping jurisdictional boundaries.”

The arrests, called “investigative holds,” were used routinely by both VPPD and EPSO as a part of their criminal investigations during which threats of continued wrongful incarceration were employed to induce arrestees to provide information. Authorities also threatened their family members and potential witnesses, the report said.

“The arrests include[d] individuals suspected (without sufficient evidence) of committing crimes, as well as their family members and potential witnesses,” it said.

Individuals improperly arrested were:

• Strip-searched;
• Placed in holding cells without beds, toilets, or showers;
• Denied communication with family members and loved ones;
• Commonly detained for seventy-two hours or more without being provided an opportunity to contest their arrest and detention;
• Held and questioned until they either provide information or the law enforcement agency determines that they do not have information related to a crime.

The report further said there were “concerns that some people may have confessed to crimes or provided information sought by EPSO and VPPD detectives, apparently to end this secret and indefinite confinement.”

It said that the practice is “routine” and that both agencies acknowledged that they used holds to investigate criminal activity for as long as anyone at the agency can remember.

The Justice Department concluded that it found “reasonable cause to believe that both EPSO and VPPD engage[d] in a pattern or practice of violating the Fourth Amendment by arresting and detaining individuals without probable cause.  Moreover, we have serious concerns that these agencies use holds to obtain coerced statements that taint the criminal convictions of the unlawfully detained individuals.

“This pattern or practice is widespread and longstanding throughout both agencies. Between January 2012 and December 2014, EPSO—an agency with four detectives that polices a jurisdiction populated by only 33,000 residents—listed “investigative hold” as the sole basis for over 200 arrests. During the same time period, VPPD arrested individuals on investigative holds more than 700 times while policing a jurisdiction of only 7,300 residents (10 percent of the city’s entire population).”

Detectives from both agencies violated individuals’ Fourth Amendment when, “lacking probable cause, they instructed officers to ‘pick up’ an individual and ‘bring him in’ for questioning rather than making an ‘arrest,’” the report said. “This practice subjects individuals to arrest and detention without cause and erodes the community trust that is critical to effective law enforcement in Evangeline Parish and Ville Platte.”

The investigative holds are made “without a warrant, without any showing that the testimony is essential and that obtaining it via subpoena is impracticable, and without any attempt to obtain prior judicial approval,” the report says.

“EPSO and VPPD officers have used unlawful investigative holds as a regular part of criminal investigations for more than two decades. Most holds operate as follows:

• When a detective at either agency wants to question someone in connection with an ongoing criminal investigation, the detective instructs a patrol officer to find that individual in the community and bring him or her in for questioning.
• The patrol officer commands the individual to ride in a patrol vehicle to either the City or Parish jail, where pursuant to the jail’s standard procedures, jail personnel strip-search the individual and place him or her in a holding cell (sometimes referred to as “the bullpen” at the Parish Jail) until a detective is available to conduct questioning.
• At the City Jail, there are two holding cells; both are equipped with a hard metal bench, and nothing else. Neither holding cell at the City Jail has a mattress, running water, shower, or toilet in the cell.
• The Parish Jail is similar; the “bullpen” is equipped with only a long metal bench, and the walls are made of metal grating.  EPSO detectives and deputies refer to the process of detaining a person in the “bullpen” for questioning as “putting them on ice.”
• Investigative holds initiated by VPPD often last for seventy-two hours—and sometimes significantly longer—forcing detainees to spend multiple nights sleeping on a concrete floor or metal bench.  Indeed, VPPD’s booking logs indicate that, from 2012-2014, several dozen investigative holds extended for at least a full week. During this time, VPPD exerts control over the detainees’ liberty: The detained person is not permitted to make phone calls to let family or employers know where they are, and have access to bathrooms and showers only when taken into the jail’s general population area.
• Similarly, EPSO’s investigative holds often last for three full days. During that time, detainees are forced to sleep on the Parish Jail’s concrete floor. One EPSO deputy reported that he saw someone held without a warrant or a probable cause determination for more than six days.
• As with VPPD, EPSO also controls the detainee’s liberty. EPSO does not permit detainees who are “on hold” to make phone calls to let family or employers know their whereabouts. Indeed, we were told that certain detectives have threatened EPSO jail officers (referred to as “jailers” in the Parish Jail) with retaliation if the officers allowed detainees to make phone calls. One EPSO jail officer described an incident in which an EPSO detective reprimanded him after the jail officer provided toothpaste and other personal supplies to a person locked in the holding cell.

In an ominous warning of the perils of investigative holds, the report said, “The willingness of officers in both agencies to arrest and detain individuals who are merely possible witnesses in criminal investigations means that literally anyone in Evangeline Parish or Ville Platte could be arrested and placed ‘on hold’ at any time.”

As any observer might suspect, a class-action lawsuit was filed, naming as defendants the Evangeline Parish Sheriff’s Office, the Ville Platte Police Department, the Parish of Evangeline and the City of Ville Platte.

The 21-page lawsuit was filed in federal district court’s Western District in Lafayette.

Represented by New York attorney Frank B. Schirripa, the lawsuit claimed the aforementioned actions by municipal police officers and sheriff’s deputies and sought damages and immediate cessation of the practice of investigative holds.

But the lawsuit was quickly dismissed by the presiding judge who ruled that plaintiffs had waited too late to file their lawsuit.

“We thought that the Justice Department’s report would have interrupted prescription, but the judge said no,” said Schirripa. “The judge said the plaintiffs knew they were detained and/or arrested, so the clock started with their being picked up by authorities. Unfortunately, the clock did not start over with the issuance of the Justice Department’s report.”

One might reasonably believe that the clock would re-start with the official revelation that the plaintiffs had been subjected to illegal treatment. One might also reasonably believe that there was a difference between being picked up for questioning and officially learning from the feds that the action was blatantly illegal.

But like those wrongly convicted and who served lengthy prison terms before being exonerated and subsequently denied monetary awards, the victims of the Evangeline Parish Sheriff’s Office and the Ville Platte Police Department are barred from recovery.

Justice delayed is justice denied.