Brown v. Ames
| Decision Date | 18 April 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 5-71 Civ. 109.,5-71 Civ. 109. |
| Citation | 346 F. Supp. 1176 |
| Parties | Sherman BROWN, Jr., by his guardian ad litem, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Gale AMES, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Robert E. Elion, Leech Lake Legal Services Project, Cass Lake, Minn., for plaintiffs.
Smith, McRae & Hilligan, by Thomas M. Hilligan, Bemidji, Minn., for defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO VACATE AND FOR REHEARING
This action is brought under the Federal Civil Rights statutes on behalf of four male teenage youths all residents in or about Cass Lake, Minnesota, against the Chief of Police and two police officers of the Village of Cass Lake. In an order dated January 25, 1972, this court dismissed out the Village of Cass Lake as a defendant under the doctrine of Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961). The complaint charges the arrest of the plaintiffs "without legal or just cause", there being no crime witnessed by the said defendants nor any lawful process or warrant issued for the arrest of the plaintiffs. Personal violence is charged on the part of the defendant police officers. Each plaintiff prays for a judgment of substantial money damages, including exemplary and punitive damages.
Three of the plaintiffs already have given approximately 250 pages of pretrial deposition testimony, and the fourth plaintiff stands willing, according to counsel, to be deposed at any reasonable time. The plaintiffs have refused, however, under the V Amendment to the United States Constitution to answer any questions posed by defendants in the deposition dealing with their activities and conversations the day or evening prior to their arrest, including facts relating to damage to the car of one William Cerrigan. Their counsel asserts they may incriminate themselves since criminal charges of aggravated damages to property are now pending against the plaintiffs in the state county court arising out of this same series of events as are attempted to be covered in the deposition questions. There can be little question but what the field of inquiry is relevant, or may lead to the discovery of relevant evidence as to whether the police officers had probable cause to make the arrests here in question.
The court does not quarrel with the proposition that each plaintiff can assert his Fifth Amendment right regarding ". . . depositions or interrogatories directed against him in a civil action where the answers might incriminate him in a pending criminal case." De Vita v. Sills, 422 F.2d 1172, 1178 (3d Cir. 1970); Duffy v. Currier, 291 F. Supp. 810 (D.Minn.1968). Nor will the court here attempt to compel such answers.
The sole question presented is whether plaintiffs by commencing the action and submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of the court can be compelled either to waive their Fifth Amendment Privilege and respond to discovery proceedings and later of course to cross examination at trial, or have their Civil Rights action dismissed with prejudice. The court answers this question in the affirmative. Lyons v. Johnson, 415 F.2d 540 (9th Cir. 1969); Christenson v. Christenson, 281 Minn. 507, 162 N.W.2d 194 (1968).
The Lyons case conceivably can be distinguished from the case sub judice on the grounds that plaintiff there refused to answer any question whatsoever except her name, although she did claim the V Amendment, whereas here plaintiffs did respond at some length and objected only to certain questions. This seems to the court however to be a rather tenuous basis for distinction. The Christenson case dismissed a divorce complaint where plaintiff, who originally had invoked the jurisdiction of the court, refused to respond to questioning on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tug Valley Pharmacy, LLC v. All Plaintiffs Below in Mingo Cnty.
...; Lyons v. Johnson, 415 F.2d 540 (9th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1027, 90 S.Ct. 1273, 25 L.Ed.2d 538 (1970) ; Brown v. Ames, 346 F.Supp. 1176 (D.C.Minn., 1972) ; Kisting v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 290 F.Supp. 141 (D.C.Wis., 1968), aff'd, 416 F.2d 967 (7th Cir.1969) ; Independent P......
-
Black Panther Party v. Smith
...questions. Penn Communications Specialties, Inc. v. Hess, 65 F.R.D. 510, 511 (E.D.Pa.1975). Judge Neville's decision in Brown v. Ames, 346 F.Supp. 1176-1178 (D.Minn.1972) was also relied upon. That was a false arrest suit by plaintiffs who refused to answer any deposition questions relating......
-
Robinson v. Robinson
...1054, 1057-58 (9th Cir.1979) (result limited to case where claim of privilege founded on groundless fear of prosecution); Brown v. Ames, 346 F.Supp. 1176 (D.Minn.1972) (plaintiffs can be compelled either to waive Fifth Amendment privilege or have action dismissed); Independent Prods. Corp. ......
-
Jones v. BC Christopher & Co., 78-4192.
...It is the former who has made the election to create an imbalance in the pans of the scales." Lyons was followed in Brown v. Ames, 346 F.Supp. 1176 (D.Minn.1972), a civil rights action in which plaintiffs claimed they had been falsely arrested. Criminal charges were pending against the plai......
-
The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination
...some courts have dismissed the plaintiff’s case. See , e.g. , Lyons v. Johnson , 415 F.2d 540, 542 (9th Cir. 1969); Brown v. Ames , 346 F. Supp. 1176 (D. Minn. 1972). b. Other courts have held dismissal too severe a remedy. See , e.g. , Attorney Gen. v. Irish People, Inc. , 684 F.2d 928, 95......
-
Table of Authorities
...v. GST Tucson Lightwave , 992 F. Supp. 1124 (D. Ariz. 1997) .................................................... 182 Brown v. Ames , 346 F. Supp. 1176 (D. Minn. 1972) ................................................... 149 Brown v. Felsen , 442 U.S. 127 (1979) ....................................