<![CDATA[Washtenaw Watchdogs - Dr. Wilkerson’s Allegations of Excessive Force and Battery]]>

Dr. Catherine Wilkerson was arrested and charged with obstructing and resisting a police officer and emergency medical personnel after a protest on the University of Michigan campus of a speech made by Reagan-Bush administration official Raymond Tanter in November 2006. She was acquitted on all charges and subsequently filed a civil suit against those involved. The suit was dismissed by a federal district court judge, without trial[1]. That judgment was reversed in part by the 6th circuit court of appeals, with regard to the charges of excessive force and assault & battery against Ann Arbor Police officer, Kevin Warner[2].

Raymond Tanter served on the senior staff of the National Security Council and as personal representative of the Secretary of Defense to arms control talks in Europe in the Reagan-Bush administration. He also taught political science and is a Professor Emeritus at the University of Michigan. In 1989, Tanter spearheaded attempts to expunge student journalists who were critical of Israel and US foreign policy from the student newspaper, the Michigan Daily[3]. He is a proponent of regime change in Iran over their nuclear program and urges the US government to keep “all options on the table” with regard to Iran[4]. In a 2005 briefing to the National Press Club[5];

Tanter said: "One military option is the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, which may have the capability to destroy hardened deeply-buried targets. That is, bunker-busting bombs could destroy tunnels and other underground facilities. But the Pentagon's 2001 Nuclear Posture Review states that over 70 countries employ underground facilities for military purposes, while the United States lacks sufficient means to destroy these facilities. In addition, the Non-Proliferation Treaty bans use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, such as Iran. Such a prohibition might not apply as much to Israel. In this respect, the United States has sold Israel bunker-busting bombs, which keeps the military option on the table."

He was invited to speak at the Michigan League building at UM on November 30, 2006 by the American Movement for Israel (AMI). The topic for the presentation was about political options for regime change in Iran.

A small group of pro-Palestinian protesters came to stage a protest during the presentation. One student observer described it as follows[6];

“Entering a room filled mostly with Jewish students, the protesters carried signs with the Nazi swastika representing the S in "Israel." Other signs labeled Zionists as murders. As Tanter began his speech, the protesters were advised of the University's free-speech policy and asked to cease disruptive behavior during the presentation.”

…protesters interrupted the lecture with shouts of "shame on you" a few times…

During the question-and-answer session, Tanter called repeatedly on the group of protesters, but it was speeches, not questions, that followed. When urged to contain their remarks to questions, they asked: "How can you explain Israel's connection to apartheid South Africa?" and "Do you acknowledge Israel's right to exist?" Tanter quipped that Israel did not need his approval to exist.

When non-protesting members of the audience were called on, cries alleging Zionist preference erupted. One protester left out of anger, advising the speaker to go to hell; another protester repeated the comment. It was at this point that Department of Public Safety officers stepped in. Although the protesters did their best to provoke police brutality, I did not see any instances of it.

A Michigan Daily editorial cited the difficulty in fairly administering the University’s freedom of speech policy[7];

“It is admirable that the University maintains a policy that attempts to preserve the free speech of speakers and dissenters alike. If fairly and correctly administered, that policy can avoid undue abridgements of expression while making removal of disruptive individuals a last resort. But though the policy is designed to mediate situations like this one, its application rarely ends up satisfying anyone.

Expressing opinions openly and passionately is a practice central to the goals of the University. But defining the difference between emotionally charged activism and outright disrespect that shuts down discussion shouldn't have to be contentious. Take, for instance, an unpopular event earlier this semester, the "Catch an Illegal Immigrant Day" sponsored by Young Americans for Freedom. Counter-protesters who considered the event racist drowned out the YAF chair's voice with chants whenever he tried to speak - giving ammunition to ideologues convinced that progressives are out to suppress any thought they deem politically incorrect.”

The head of the organizing committee said;

“Josh Berman, a senior and chairman of the student group, said protesters tried to "hijack" the event. Berman said Tanter took questions from some of the protesters and gave them an opportunity to speak, but some of the protesters insulted him.

"They were trying to hijack the debate to reflect what they wanted to get across," Berman said. "They didn't want to listen and they did not want to talk."

Catherine Wilkerson is a physician of Iranian heritage and she was one of the protesters but not one of the ones who were arrested by the police that night. She described the events as follows[8];

One of the protesters, an Iranian woman, became the first target of the political repression in store for the night. At the behest of one of the AIM organizers, a U of M cop proceeded to remove her.

The cop, maybe 6’6 or bigger, grabbed her arm, dragging her to the floor, where he applied pressure point control tactics (PPCT) as she screamed. PPCT is what’s called a pain compliance technique, using the infliction of pain to force someone to do what you order. It’s used against someone who poses a serious threat of physical harm; someone, say, who’s in the cop’s grip, clutching a knife and on the verge of stabbing a person. In this case, the cop inflicted pain to force compliance with his order to stand up, while he pinned her to the floor with his knee. She kept screaming.

"Don’t hurt her," called out the woman who’d been sitting in the next seat over, also an Iranian woman, a U of M Professor of Iranian History, in fact, and another dissenting voice at the event. One of the other protesters came to the first victim’s aid and was hauled away, cuffed and arrested. A second protester came to the victim’s aid and followed as she was hauled away. The AMI organizers were calling the shots.

I heard a commotion in the hall and stepped out of the room. In the hall I saw the same huge cop on top of the second protester who’d come to the first victim’s aid. The cop had the man, a relatively small guy in his forties, pinned down, arms pulled behind his back, getting handcuffed. The cop used PPCT against this person also, not once but twice. The man writhed and cried out in pain.

The cop used his far-greater strength and body weight, along with the force of his knee on his victim’s back to press his chest against the floor. It would be impossible for a person to inflate his lungs pressed against the floor with his hands cuffed behind his back like that. Asphyxiation being a well-known cause of death of people in custody, when the man started calling out that he couldn’t breathe, I approached, identified myself as a doctor, and instructed the cop to turn him over immediately. The victim went limp. The cop turned him onto his back. I saw that the victim had a wound on his forehead and blood in his nostrils. He was unconscious.

Reiterating numerous times that I was a doctor, I tried to move to where I could assess the victim for breathing and a pulse. The cop shoved me, until finally, after my imploring him to allow me to render medical care to the victim, he allowed me to determine that the victim was alive. But he refused to remove the cuffs despite my requests. A person lying with hands cuffed beneath his body risks nerve damage to the extremities and, moreover, cannot be resuscitated. I continually re-assessed the man, who had now become my patient, and who remained unconscious.

Eventually an ambulance arrived, along with the fire department and a contingent of Ann Arbor police officers. While the paramedics went about their business, the first thing being to have the cop un-cuff the patient, I tried to fulfill my obligation to my patient. I tried to oversee what the paramedics were doing, which, contrary to protocol and the normal relationship between physician and paramedic, was all that I was allowed to do. I was forced to stay away. What I witnessed in the course of their treatment appalled me.

When the patient didn’t respond to a sternal rub, one of the paramedics popped an ammonia inhalant and thrust it beneath the patient’s nostrils. If you’re interested in what’s wrong with that, google Dr. Bryan Bledsoe, foremost authority on paramedicine, and read his article condemning this dangerous practice. That it’s "just bad medicine" is sufficient to make the paramedic’s actions unacceptable, but what happened next made my blood curdle. He popped a second inhalant and a third, then cupped his hands over the patient’s nostrils to heighten the noxious effect. "You don’t like that, do you?" he said.

At that point I issued a direct medical order for him to stop, but he ignored me. "What you’re doing is punitive," I said, "and has no efficacy." Then as the patient retched, rather than rolling him onto his side to avoid the chance of his choking on his own vomit, a firefighter held his feet down and yelled, "don’t spit." In thirty years of doctoring, I have never witnessed such egregious maltreatment of a patient. Again I spoke up, "this is punitive." I hoped to shame the paramedical into stopping his unethical behavior.

Suddenly an Ann Arbor cop ordered me to move away. As I headed for my purse and coat, the cop attacked me from behind, twisted my arms with extreme force behind my back, and shoved me against the wall. I begged him to release my left arm, explaining that I had a serious condition affecting my shoulder, and pleading with him because of the excruciating pain he was inflicting on me. I told him that I would do whatever he demanded. I told him that I had been in the process of complying with his order to move out of the way and that I was heading toward where my purse and coat were. He told me to relax and wrenched my arms harder. I was in agony. I told him that I would sit down, anything, that he was really hurting me and begged him to release my arm. Eventually he let my arms down.

But his brutality did not stop there. He then forced me to stand in the stairwell in a corner for a protracted period of time. I asked him if I could please go home, as I was in pain, and I was deeply traumatized. In yet another raw display of abuse of power, he forced me to stand there, causing me ongoing suffering and humiliation, before finally allowing me to leave.

The U of M proceeded with prosecution of the other three people, but I heard nothing further from them until I filed a complaint of police brutality. Now I’m facing criminal prosecution, too, along with the Professor of Iranian History, who, like me, was charged after she filed a complaint. We five are being prosecuted for "assaulting /resisting/ obstructing" police officers, and in my case, for "assaulting/ resisting/ obstructing" paramedics as well.

Suffocation during the arrest and handcuffing of suspects has been a significant cause of death, including a prominent case involving the arrest of Clifton Lee by the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Department[9], which had occurred just 5 months before Raymond Tanter’s speech.

Catherine Wilkerson’s federal civil rights case was initially dismissed without trial in the federal district court, however, the central question of whether or not Officer Warner used excessive force or under state law was guilty of assault & battery was reversed by the court of appeals and sent back to district court for trial.

The Supreme Court has established that the right to be free from excessive force during an arrest or investigatory stop exists as part of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizures. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394 (1989).

Accordingly, we find, taking her allegations as true, that Wilkerson has properly alleged a Fourth Amendment deprivation.

Turning to whether any officer would have found Officer Warner’s actions to be reasonable, the Fourth Amendment standard for reasonableness of an officer’s use of force “requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Id. at 396 (citing Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 8–9 (1985)). However, “the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it.” Id. Officer Warner responds that when giving deference to his on-the- spot judgment, he did not use excessive force in detaining Wilkerson.

Reviewing the totality of the circumstances, there is no indication that Wilkerson posed an immediate threat to the safety of any officer or others on the scene, and there is some factual dispute as to whether Wilkerson ever attempted to cross the police line between the public and the treatment that was occurring. There is also a lack of evidence that Wilkerson was resisting arrest; in fact, Wilkerson alleges that she was attempting to leave the scene at the point at which Officer Warner detained her. We weigh the reasonableness of Officer Warner’s actions under the lens of all of these factors.

When viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Wilkerson, we find that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Officer Warner’s actions were excessive. Plaintiffs may “allege use of excessive force even where the physical contact between the parties did not leave excessive marks or cause extensive physical damage.”…

In accordance with our precedents, we find that, when viewing the facts in the light most

favorable to Wilkerson, a reasonable jury could believe that Officer Warner’s alleged actions in aggressively pulling plaintiffs’ arms backward, marching her out of the hallway, and pushing her into the wall, all resulting in a re-aggravated shoulder injury requiring physical therapy, were excessive when her offense was non-violent, she posed no immediate threat of safety to Officer Warner or the public, and she did not attempt to escape and did not actively resist arrest.

When the trial court grants a motion for summary dismissal to the defendant, it must assume that the facts alleged by the plaintiff are true in order to determine whether the law requires a dismissal or whether the jury, as fact finder, may reasonably find in favor of the plaintiff. The appeals court ruling will now send this back to a jury.

[1]http://www.annarbor.com/news/judge-rules-no-excessive-force-used-by-police-in-doctors-detainment-on-university-of-michigan-campus/

wilkerson_case_appeals_court_opinion.pdf
File Size:	91 kb
File Type:	pdf