Thread: CA-Judge tosses sanctuary suit in S.F. killings

Judge tosses sanctuary suit in S.F. killings
Bob Egelko

Wednesday, February 24, 2010




Share Comments (443)

(02-23) 17:44 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- The family of a father and two sons who were shot dead on a San Francisco street in 2008 can't hold the city responsible for failing to turn their alleged killer over to immigration authorities after earlier arrests, a judge has ruled.


The city isn't legally to blame for any crimes Edwin Ramos, a suspected illegal immigrant from El Salvador, committed after his release for the offenses he committed as a juvenile, Judge Charlotte Woolard of San Francisco Superior Court said Monday.

Cities "generally are not liable for failing to protect individuals against crime," Woolard said.

She dismissed a damage suit by the widow and daughter of Tony Bologna, 48, who was shot to death in his car near the family's home in the Excelsior district in June 2008. His sons Michael Bologna, 20, and Matthew Bologna, 16, were also killed.

Their brother, who survived the attack, identified Ramos, then 21, as the man who fired the fatal shots from a passing car. Police said the gunman may have mistaken the younger Bolognas for gang members.

Ramos told police that he had been driving the car but that another man had fired the shots. He has pleaded not guilty to three counts of murder and faces life in prison without parole if convicted.

The Bologna family's lawyer, Matthew Davis, said they would appeal Woolard's ruling. Davis said he agrees that a city usually can't be held responsible for failing to prevent a crime, but he contended that the shield of immunity shouldn't protect San Francisco because by failing to turn over Ramos to immigration authorities, it was "flat-out violating the law."

Matt Dorsey, spokesman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera, said Woolard had relied on well-established law in deciding that San Francisco was not liable for Ramos' actions.

Ramos, whom prosecutors describe as a member of the MS-13 gang, was arrested as a juvenile for an assault in October 2003 and an attempted purse-snatching in 2004. Juvenile courts sent him to a shelter after the first incident and to the city-run Log Cabin Ranch in the Peninsula hills after the second.

Case records don't show whether police or juvenile courts suspected that Ramos had entered the United States illegally. But under the city's sanctuary policy, as juvenile authorities then interpreted it, they would not have passed along that information to federal immigration officials.

Mayor Gavin Newsom reversed that practice in 2008 and ordered city employees to report suspected illegal immigrant youths to federal authorities after felony arrests. City supervisors passed an ordinance over Newsom's veto that delayed reporting until a youth is found to have committed a felony, but the mayor is refusing to enforce it, saying it violates federal law.

After Ramos' release, federal authorities learned of his immigration status but did not take him into custody. The family's lawsuit contended, however, that the city was responsible for the shootings because its policy had allowed Ramos to go free.

In her ruling, Woolard said San Francisco had no duty to protect the Bolognas or anyone else from Ramos unless city officials had information that he posed a specific danger to them. There was no such evidence in this case, she said.

Davis also argued that San Francisco had violated a federal law prohibiting local authorities from interfering in immigration enforcement and should be held responsible for any resulting harm. The judge, however, questioned whether the law applied to the city's actions.

She said the law couldn't be a basis for finding the city liable because it was intended to improve immigration controls, not to prevent crime.


E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 1C63N7.DTL

Cities "generally are not liable for failing to protect individuals against crime," Woolard said.

Then why don't they save money and get rid of their police forces? It sure would help the budget shortfalls from providing benefits to illegal aliens.

Does this mean Americans in SF can kill illegal immigrants and the suits be "tossed" by the same judge under the same ruling? Sounds fair, doesn't it?

sounds sad, but my CHL (concealed handgun license) instructor told us the same...about the police!! they do not have the responsibility to protect the individual against a criminal, they only have a duty to protect society as a whole against crime. He even cited the supreme court case but most of use were outraged we did not even bother to write down the case. It did not make sense then and it does not make sense to me right now....

There are 522 comments so far at the source link.
~~~

Added to Homepage:
http://www.alipac.us/article-4962--0-0.html

If treason still carried the death sentence we could end illegal immigration immediately!

String a couple traitors up on public TV for the crime of selling out their country to make a buck and I promise the rest of these back stabbing greedy bottom feeders would fall in line "NO MORE" illegal immigration.

Our government allowed this to happen and continues to allow it to happen and all they do is make up lies and excuses all the while hundreds more illegals along with their anchor babies are crossing our borders and setting down roots.

Those in power know all they have to do is just keep stalling and those people will breed etc. There is no excuse for what these greedy degenerates have done to the USA.

The only way we'll ever get our country back is by force.

In the state of Ohio, this Feb, cities lost this "immunity" as a defense. The case didn't involve illegal aliens built a DUI driver. The police officers should have impounded his car and license plates. Unfortunately, they were returned to the driver and couple days after his arrest. He drove down the road and was involved in another accident, another driver was killed.

I'll look for the specific info and post it.

Thursday, January 28, 2010 1:02 PM, By Randy Ludlow, The Columbus Dispatch

Ohio Supreme Court clears way for lawsuits against some public employees

Ohio Supreme Court clears way for lawsuits against some public employees who act recklessly are not protected by their employers' cloak of immunity and can be sued personally for lawsuit damages, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled today.

A lawyer who regularly defends local governments fears the ruling will prompt a flurry of lawsuits against public employees. The ruling stems from appeals in a wrongful-death lawsuit in which the estate of a woman killed in a 2003 crash with a drunken driver sued two Circleville police officers and a dispatcher for reckless conduct.

Lawyers for the police employees had argued they could not be sued under a 1988 Ohio Supreme Court ruling that largely shielded public employees from personal liability. However, justices found that those protections were set aside when lawmakers formally granted immunity from lawsuits to governmental entities and employees, except those who act maliciously or recklessly,

"If the Supreme Court held otherwise, it truly would have immunized public employees from reckless and wanton misconduct. It's obviously an important decision," said Rex Elliott, the Columbus lawyer suing the Circleville officers. While Circleville cannot be directly sued, the city legally would be on the hook for damages if jurors find its employees' conduct was reckless, Elliott said.

A host of organizations representing Ohio police, county commissioners, school boards and townships and children services, mental health and job and family services employees had asked the court to rule in favor of the Circleville officers.

The lawyer representing most of the groups, Mark Landes of Columbus, said: "Employees are going to be subject to a lot more lawsuits any time someone believes they have not done everything they could to protect the public. "I don't think the taxpayers believe that every time someone is hurt, that the public's coffers should be open to them. This opens the coffers wider than they were yesterday. It gets to be, “A failure- to-protect-the-world kind of claim," Landes said.

The lawyers representing the Circleville employees declined to comment on the court's ruling. The lawsuit that sparked the court ruling alleges that following the July 4, 2003 drunken-driving arrest of Cornelius Copley, 57, police returned his car despite knowing it was required to be impounded.
Police also knew the driver's license of the five-time DUI offender was suspended, the suit claims.

On July 6, 2003, the Circleville man was driving drunk the wrong way on Rt. 23 in Ross County when his car collided head-on with a car driven by Jill Graves, 23, of Chillicothe. Both Copley and Graves died in the crash.
The justices' 6-1 opinion upheld appellate and trial court rulings, clearing the way for the lawsuit to go to trial in Pickaway County Common Pleas Court more than six years after it was filed.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/lo ... oyees.html

I suspect that this ruling has a decent chance of being overturned on appeal. The city was clearly neglegent with their sanctuary policies and they certainly should be held accountable.

This "judge" came to this decision because this was the decision she wanted to come to politically in my opinion. This isn't going to stop until enough family members of the traitors lose THEIR lives to these illegal invaders if even then. When you think about it, If a traitor is willing to sell out their country for whatever motives these insane people hold, then it wouldn't certainly be a stretch to think that their own families might be negotiable as well.....POND SCUM!!!

Ramos, whom prosecutors describe as a member of the MS-13 gang, was arrested as a juvenile for an assault in October 2003 and an attempted purse-snatching in 2004.
In her ruling, Woolard said San Francisco had no duty to protect the Bolognas or anyone else from Ramos unless city officials had information that he posed a specific danger to them. There was no such evidence in this case, she said.

If he is a gang member, does he not pose a specific threat to society period!