Misti Lee SCHNEIDER, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. The CITY OF GRAND JUNCTION POLICE DEPARTMENT, an agency of the City of Grand Junction; Bill Gardner; John Camper; William D. Baker; John A. Zen; Rick Dyer, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, and John and Jane Does, 3-10, in their official and individual capacities, Defendants Nos. 12-1086, 12-1115 (US App. June 5, 2013)
The person, Lee Schneider called 911 in order to have assistance with her son who was making noise and disturbance in the neighborhood. The officer name Coyne responded alongside other officer, and the leading official in this regard notified the mother that her son can face serious charges as his offense of playing with explosives qualify as class four crime, and his status as an adult could make affairs worse for him. However, Coyne presented his services as a mentor for the kid, and the telephonic relation between the parent and teacher grew strengthened, but one day policeman attacked the citizen in her home when she was planning to move out. The officer entered the property without permission, and subdued the victim both in psychological and physiological terms. Coyne threatened Lee about the wellbeing of her son in order to keep her silent (Misti Lee SCHNEIDER, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. The CITY OF GRAND JUNCTION POLICE DEPARTMENT). However, she spoke up, and the accused officer faced conviction in the light of compelling physical evidence, and he committed suicide a few days after his termination. Ms. Schneider did not find peace as a result of a suspension, and went on to have a case against the supervisors of Coyne for not regulating and monitoring the actions of their subordinate effectively. The investigators provided safety to the whistleblower by keeping her in hiding from the suspect who might have caused the witness to suffer psychologically by cursing and blaming upon confrontation. (Protection to whistleblower)
Whether or not Coyne’s investigation was conducted properly without obtaining forced confession and is the claim of the victim about attacker’s superiors a valid conjuncture?
The investigative effort of internal nature against Coyne did not obtain a forced confession, and neither the investigative team threatened the subject with the perspective of termination. The due process of collecting evidentiary material was followed, and the medical reports of the assaulted suggested that she was raped, and the cross-referencing of the obtained biological material confirmed the identity of the potential assailant. The investigative officers identified themselves in front of the suspect, and only one person conducted the investigation. All of the material evidences were presented to the accused party, and he did not experience subjection to violence at any time. The head of investigative team gave the subject of the investigation appropriate rest periods whereas; he was not detained from having visits to washroom. The investigative officer did read out the Gritty and Weingarten rights to the suspect, and prior to that, the defendant was made aware of the charges those he faced during the internal trail. Secondly, the motion of the victim against the supervisors went through the process of nullification because it did not have solid legal grounds. (Officers’ Bill of Rights, Gritty, Weingarten Rights were covered in this section )
The conduction and execution of Coyne’s investigation were legal, and the investigators paid close attention to every ethical dimension of the process as well. The suspect was convicted in the light of evidence, and he did not face the compelling hand to give the confession either. However, the court contended that the superiors of Coyne could have done better jobs in regards to regulating the actions of the officer, but they are not liable for his mistakes so the suit of Ms. Schneider stood dismissed. (Forced Confession, employee litigation were covered)
The investigators interrogated the subject while he was not duty, and therefore, they made the issue of paid/unpaid leave an irrelevancy in this regard. The decisions of the court in abovementioned case had kept highest standards of legal services intact, and therefore, substantiated the authenticity of Coyne’s trail. On the other hand, the court dismissed the views of the victim about supervisors of the attacker because the law cannot blame a person or persons for the actions taken by another individual. The relation of trust was developing between the two involved parties, and the victim accepted the risk of physical altercation while building a relation with a stranger. Finally, the unlocked doors of victim’s home abetted the assailant in the progression of his heinous crime. However, the senior officers had to ensure that Coyne was fit for duty in mental and physical terms, and his superiors failed miserably in this regard, and the issue at hand prevented the union from stepping in because the involved criminal under no circumstances had any chance of surviving the investigative process in uniform. Secondly, the litigation process was conducted with utmost level of transparency and clarity. (Psychological services for officers, paid/unpaid leave were covered, Union interference were covered)
Driver, Edwin D. "Confessions and the Social Psychology of Coercion." Harvard Law Review 82.1 (1968): 42-61. Online.
Misti Lee SCHNEIDER, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. The CITY OF GRAND JUNCTION POLICE DEPARTMENT, an agency of the City of Grand Junction; Bill Gardner; John Camper; William D. Baker; John A. Zen; Rick Dyer, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants,. No. 12-1086 and12-1115. US Court of Appeals. 5 June 2013. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com.pk/scholar_case?case=3040019780630873344&q=Misti+Lee+SCHNEIDER,+Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,+&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 on July 2, 2015. Online.