|
Source
the thing that pisses me off about this is civilans routinely get arrested for animal cruelity when they have dogs that die like this. but normally when police dogs die like this the cops who caused the deaths are never charged with crimes like civilians are. well except for lovejoy. Sheriff Joe wanted to make himself look like a hero by busting love joy http://www.azcentral.com/community/chandler/articles/2012/04/13/20120413arpaio-dog-death-lawsuit-settled.html Lawsuit over Sheriff Arpaio dog-death case settled 86 comments by Parker Leavitt - Apr. 13, 2012 09:52 PM The Republic | azcentral.com Maricopa County on Friday agreed to pay $775,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by Chandler police officer Thomas Lovejoy, who claimed he was wrongfully arrested by Sheriff Joe Arpaio related to the 2007 death of Lovejoy's K-9 partner, Bandit. While Lovejoy admitted he was "tragically negligent" in leaving the police dog unattended for several hours in his patrol SUV, his attorney argued a "vindictive and headline-hungry" Arpaio pushed for criminal prosecution despite lacking "a shred of evidence," according to court documents. A criminal prosecution would have required evidence showing Lovejoy intended to harm the dog, Lovejoy's attorney Michael Manning contended. But Arpaio insisted on bringing charges against Lovejoy to create a public example, Manning said. A justice of the peace in the San Tan Justice Court in Chandler acquitted Lovejoy of animal-abuse charges in August 2008. Lovejoy filed a notice of claim the next month, seeking $350,000 in compensation for the county's alleged "malicious prosecution." Lovejoy's suit, filed in August 2009, was headed for a jury trial next week, but the parties struck a deal around 1 p.m. Friday, Manning said. The county will pay $175,000 to Lovejoy plus $600,000 in attorney fees, with no admission of guilt, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Deputy Chief Jack MacIntyre said. A news release sent by MCSO on Friday only mentioned the $175,000 figure. Despite the settlement, MacIntyre said the Sheriff's Office still believes it acted properly in arresting Lovejoy on animal-abuse charges. "Could it have been handled slightly differently? Maybe," MacIntyre said. Lovejoy was arrested by MCSO three weeks after his K-9 partner's death in August 2007. Lovejoy had left Bandit, forgotten, in the back of his SUV while he attended to several family needs, according to court records. Chandler police had been on constant alert for a serial rapist, and Lovejoy had slept 61/2 hours in the previous two days, records indicate. Distraught and "babbling" upon finding Bandit dead, Lovejoy immediately called police. Although the Chandler Police Department announced it would only pursue an internal investigation, MCSO claimed jurisdiction, since Lovejoy lived in an unincorporated county area, according to Lovejoy's civil complaint. While MacIntyre said Friday the sheriff acted on a belief that animal-abuse cases should be investigated, Manning was set to argue in front of a jury that Arpaio singled out Lovejoy while opting not to investigate other canine deaths, including the death of a police dog in his own agency. According to a deposition filed on March 26, Manning had questioned Arpaio on the record about an incident in 2006 involving the death of an MCSO dog named Ranger. Arpaio said he was under the impression that the K-9 death had been investigated and that he handles such issues by delegating to his staff. When asked if MCSO has any written policies related to animal abuse, Arpaio replied, "I don't know," according to the deposition. Manning's court filings also included more than 50 e-mails to the Sheriff's Office from people advocating for action against Lovejoy and a list of four other law-enforcement canines that had died while in their handlers' care. MacIntyre said he would have preferred to argue the case in court, but Maricopa County's risk-management department determined the settlement was a "palatable amount." Reporter JJ Hensley contributed to this article. http://www.azcentral.com/community/chandler/articles/2012/04/13/20120413chandler-officer-lovejoy-lawsuit-against-arpaio-jury-selection.html Jury selection to begin in officer's lawsuit against Arpaio Apr. 13, 2012 07:59 AM Associated Press Jury selection is scheduled to begin Tuesday in a lawsuit by a Chandler police officer who accuses Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio of violating his rights by arresting the officer in the death of his police dog. Sgt. Tom Lovejoy was charged with misdemeanor animal abuse in the August 2007 death of his police dog, a Belgian Malinois named Bandit. The dog died from excessive heat after the officer left the animal in a hot police vehicle for several hours. Lovejoy was acquitted of the charge and alleges that Arpaio, in arresting the officer, wanted publicity to show he was tough on animal abusers. Arpaio argues that Lovejoy lacks evidence connecting the sheriff to Lovejoy's arrest and, in any event, that various legal doctrines shield Arpaio. http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/EJMontini/160117 Arpaio’s bark takes bite out of taxpayers In August 2007 Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio staged what turned out to be a $775,000 dog and pony show. Minus the pony. Arpaio’s deputies arrested Chandler Police Officer Tom Lovejoy whose K-9 partner, Bandit, died after Lovejoy forgot him in a police vehicle for the better part of a day. The case against Lovejoy was all bark and no bite, legally, but it played well on TV and it was a publicity bonanza for Arpaio. The officer was charged with animal abuse for what was a tragic accident. An overworked, overstressed man forgot about a dog he had trained and loved. “I always took responsibility for what I did,” Lovejoy told me earlier this week. “But there was no criminal intent.” That didn’t stop Arpaio’s office from arresting Lovejoy and hauling him to jail. It didn’t stop the (now disbarred) county attorney Andrew Thomas from proceeding with the case, which was prosecuted by his (now disbarred) deputy Lisa Aubuchon. Lovejoy was acquitted. He was removed from the K-9 squad but has remained with the department. For a long time after Bandit’s death, however, Lovejoy was all over the news. His mug shot was on the Internet. He and his family got death threats. The officer and his wife, Carolyn, decided to sue the sheriff. Arpaio’s lawyers tried to get the lawsuit tossed but U.S. District Judge Neil Wake said that dog won’t hunt. He told the sheriff’s attorneys, “The press release, the press conference on the day of Lovejoy’s arrest, and the fact that no reasonable official could conclude that the animal-cruelty statute applied to Lovejoy could all be reasonably interpreted by the jury as ‘reckless disregard’ of Lovejoy’s rights in pursuit of other goals, such as publicity and political gain.” Last week the county’s lawyers agreed to a settlement of $775,000 for the Lovejoys and their attorney, Michael Manning. Afterwards Arpaio’s office declared … victory? Yes. The sheriff’s public relations team sent out a press release saying that Lovejoy “struck a deal with county officials for $175,000, a fraction of the original asking amount.” It was an attempt to change the subject, to point out that the Lovejoys’ share of the settlement was $175,000 in order to highlight the $600,000 that would go to their attorneys. The idea was to shift the discussion away from the sheriff. When I told Arpaio I would be writing about the Lovejoys he said, “Why don’t you write about the attorneys who get all the money?” Instead, I asked Tom and Carolyn Lovejoy if they were upset by the way the settlement would be divided. “Not at all,” said Carolyn. “Our lawyers worked for four years on our case. Four years. That’s a long time. And it wasn’t just Mr. Manning. There were others.” Tom added, “It’s unfortunate that you have to resort to something like a lawsuit to seek justice but that’s how it is sometimes. Luckily for us this law firm has the muscle to take on the county. If you don’t have a strong law firm on your side they’ll just roll over you.” Carolyn added, “Besides, back when we first filed a claim we set the amount at $350,000 for the whole thing. For us. For our lawyers. Everything. Because of the delays and fighting us it ended up at $775,000.” Manning, their attorney, told me, “The Lovejoys are good people who never should have been subjected to anything like this.” In the months after Bandit died news reports surfaced of several other deaths of police dogs, including at least one in the care of sheriff’s deputies. None of those cases resulted in arrests. “What happened to me was a show for the sheriff,” Tom Lovejoy said. “I only hope that it’s over, and that no one else has to go through it. Although I doubt that.” After all, this wasn’t the first time Arpaio’s bark took a bite out of the taxpayers’ pocketbook. And as we know, you can’t teach an old sheriff new tricks. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/12/23/20111223judge-refuses-toss-chandler-officer-lovejoy-suit.html udge refuses to toss Chandler Officer Lovejoy's suit Lovejoy filed vs. Arpaio after '08 acquittal by JJ Hensley - Dec. 23, 2011 09:27 PM The Arizona Republic A federal judge denied an attempt by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office to get a lawsuit by a Chandler police officer dropped. The suit accuses Sheriff Joe Arpaio and other county employees of unconstitutional arrest and prosecution related to the death of his K-9 partner, Bandit. Chandler police Officer Thomas Lovejoy was arrested and charged with animal cruelty following the August 2007 death of Bandit, who died in the back of Lovejoy's patrol SUV after the officer forgot the dog. A justice of the peace in the San Tan Justice Court in Chandler acquitted Lovejoy of animal abuse in 2008, and the officer filed a notice of claim that year seeking $350,000 in damages. Arpaio sought a summary judgment in his favor, but U.S. District Judge Neil Wake refused Friday, saying Lovejoy had sufficient evidence that Arpaio acted maliciously to bring the case to a jury. The case generated ample publicity for the Sheriff's Office, which now makes up a key part of Lovejoy's claim that his arrest was motivated by Arpaio's desire for exposure. "The press releases, the press conference on the day of Lovejoy's arrest, and the fact that no reasonable official could conclude that the animal-cruelty statute applied to Lovejoy could all be reasonably interpreted by the jury as 'reckless disregard' of Lovejoy's rights in pursuit of other goals, such as publicity and political gain," Wake wrote in the decision to deny Arpaio's request for summary judgment. |