A federal appeals court ruled that a Mississippi police officer who had driven and left a disabled
man at the County line wasn't liable for the man's death after he was struck and killed
by a passing vehicle.
Very complicated case, but it's pretty straight forward in what the police officer did wrong.
I have legal journalist Mollye Barrows with me to talk about it.
Lay out the facts of this case.
I mean, I read the first three or four paragraphs of the, of the case and it's, it's clue, it's
clear to me due process, equal protection, all of these constitutional issues come into
mind but the court, the appellate court, fifth circuit, probably one of the worst circuits
in the country.
I would agree.
Says, we don't see any problem here.
Oh my gosh.
And when you hear the facts of this case, you think, why don't you see any problems
with this?
And basically what happened is this particular officer, Darren Fleming, was assisting two
city police officers in the city in Mississippi and it was a town of Kosci, Kosciusko and
the County was Attica or Attala, pardon me.
And so he was assisting these city officers who found this man, Gerald Simpson, walking
in the middle of the road.
He couldn't speak clearly.
Turns out he had a speech impediment.
He'd been treated recently at a local hospital for developmental disabilities.
He lived with his sister who was essentially his caretaker and he'd gotten out that night.
So he was walking in the middle of the road.
The city officers find him.
This deputy comes and assists, puts him in the back of his patrol car, takes him to the
County line and basically says he's giving him a ride home.
But he never asks for his identification.
He never asks for any kind of information that could help lead him to some family member
to where this guy actually lived.
Right.
So he took him to the County line, which when this man's family, and where he was hit and
killed.
So he drops him off, leaves him, makes sure he's walking out of Attala County, and then
he takes off.
And the, and Mr. Simpson was later hit and struck by another vehicle that night and killed
and his family filed a wrongful death lawsuit, not only against this officer, but also against
the two city officers in the, in the city itself.
Okay.
Let me, let me lay this out just a little bit on the, on the legal aspect.
First of all, this is a County that does this, city and a County that worked this little
scam all the time.
Homeless person, somebody who's drunk and maybe just living on the street, they don't
know what to do with.
Right.
They just take them to the County line, drop them off.
Obviously this police officer concluded because he had a mental disability, this man had a
mental disability, his speech impediment.
Yes.
Probably concluded that he was drunk and that he was a homeless man, although he was being
taken care of by his sister, as you point out.
What really sends me over the edge on this is the fifth circuit saying there was no constitutional
violation here in what happened.
Due process.
Okay.
Unbelievable.
Would we have, would we have not at least given this guy the opportunity or somebody
to explain he's, he, he has a mental disability, has a speech impediment.
Didn't bother to look into it.
Okay.
Or how about equal protection?
You think if this character was dressed up in a suit with a tie carrying a briefcase
that this cat would have driven him to the County line and dropped him?
Absolutely not.
He would have driven him home.
He would have said like, oh, where do you live, how can we help you?
You know, you're a, you appear to be an upstanding tax paying citizen.
But basically they said that he was entitled to qualified immunity, this officer was, and
that's why he couldn't be sued for wrongful death, which essentially allows a government
official to be shielded from civil liability if it doesn't violate a person what's called
their clearly established constitutional rights.
And they were saying in this particular instance, it wasn't clearly established that his constitutional
rights were violated because, and I'm not entirely sure I followed the reasoning that
it's not.
Okay, a first, a first year law student would look at these, the facts of this case.
A first year law student would say, what about due process?
What about equal protection?
This guy looks different than mr businessman.
So it wasn’t equal protection.
There was no equal protection here and that's a basic fundamental constitutional right.
How about due process?
This officer makes the, he makes the determination, hey, I'm just going to be the judge and the
jury.
I'm going to carry him to the County line.
I'm not going to make any effort to figure out what's his disability.
He doesn't sound right and he's not speaking right.
I can't smell alcohol, but something's wrong here.
Well, what do you do if you're not there to serve and protect?
You're only there to serve and protect the people that you feel that qualify to have
their constitutional rights protected?
And in this case, I was surprised that they actually upheld that decision.
A lower court said that they had actually dismissed the case against the two city officers
in the city, but they had allowed it to move forward against the County and this particular
deputy.
So it was this, you know, this fifth circuit court of appeals that, that basically overruled
the lower court's decision.
Nothing, nothing good comes from the fifth circuit.
And we're always, everybody we, you know, we talk about segments all the time, you know,
the typical voter out there thinks, oh, I got to worry about the White House.
I gotta worry about Senate.
I gotta worry about the House of Representatives.
They miss the fact.
That's right.
That all the ugliest things happen at the trial court level, the appellate court level,
and when they start packing those, when, when those are packed with ideologues, this is
the kind of thing that happens.
Well that's exactly what I wonder too, pap, and I know you're wrapping it up, but I thought
how could they justify this decision?
It's one of those things on the, on the, it just seems obvious they should have been doing
their job and protecting this man.
At the very least, should have taken him someplace where they could have gotten to the bottom
of who he was.
Yeah.
And I thought, oh, maybe they just decided this deputy's career wasn't worth ruining
it over that.
You could ask any lawyer in the country and they'll say, oh, it was the fifth circuit.
I mean, isn't that awful when it gets to that point?
That's terrible.
Thank you for joining me.
Okay.
Thanks Pap.