The City of Durham has served notice that it will appeal a federal judge’s ruling, which would allow several members of Duke University lacrosse team, who were falsely accused of rape, to press on with their civil rights claims.
Specifically, the court held that the ex-players’ claims are plausible enough and that a decision shouldn’t be made until more discovery can take place concerning how the City’s police department, city officials and former District Attorney Mike Nifong handled the investigation of a rape allegation.
The court was especially cognizant of the most serious allegation against the defendants that they fabricated or rigged evidence to bolster the woman’s charges. This, it suggested, falls under the heading of a potential “significant abuse of government power.” It deserves a factual inquiry because this “exactly the type” of conduct the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is supposed to prevent.
“The intentional use of false or misleading evidence before a grand jury to obtain an indictment and arrest without probable cause is exactly the type of unreasonable search and seizure that the Fourth Amendment was designed to protect against, and would violate the most fundamental concepts of due process,” the court wrote.
In a statement, plaintiffs’ attorney Charles Cooper said: “We are heartened by the judge’s carefully considered decision permitting the lacrosse players’ primary claims to move forward. We will immediately begin taking extensive discovery and preparing the case for trial.”
Prior to the City’s appeal, Beverly Thompson, Durham’s public affairs director, said in a statement: “The city is gratified that the court has dismissed many of the plaintiffs’ claims and has narrowed the issues raised in these cases. We believe the court correctly dismissed the punitive damages claims against the city and are pleased and encouraged by that favorable determination.”
To view the opinion, visit http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/52029367-evans-et-al-v-city-of-durham-et-al-memorandum-decision-on-motions-to-dismiss.pdf
