Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Woody55
. . . . I can see where a defendant might settle and pay something less than the cost of a trial even if the chances of the plaintiff winning and be awarded damages were remote.
I the context of this thread, I'd say that the comment that such a policy would generate a flood of lawsuits, I think that the comment is overreaching. . . . .
|
Settlement vs. possible jury damages is a very real consideration when you're in the defendant's shoes. As for overreaching, well, there's a reason that I called them "potential plaintiffs," if I remember correctly. Not every one will sue, and of the ones that sue, not every one will win. Nonetheless, the S&F program continued for several years and I feel confident in saying that there's no shortage of civil rights lawyers in NY. Besides, under 42 USC 1988 (I think), a prevailing plaintiff gets his attorneys' fees paid, so a plaintiff doesn't risk any money by suing.
Also bear in mind that the exclusionary rule and a civil rights lawsuit are not mutually exclusive. If a defendant succeeds in winning the motion to exclude evidence, which might (or, admittedly, might not) help provide a basis for the civil rights suit. In unlawful search and seizure suits, the first questions a good civil rights defense lawyer ought to ask his officers is, "Did you charge the plaintiff with anything? What happened to the charges?" If the search was found to be incompliance with the A4, the suit is barred under
Heck v. Humphrey.