04-992Council FIle # D� � / �
�soLUTTOrr
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Green Sheet # 3023502
I1P
Presented By
Referred ?'o
Committee: Date
1 RESOLVED, that upon execution and delivery of a release in full to the City of St. Paul, the proper City
2 officers are hereby authorized and directed to pay out of the Tort Liability Fund 09070-511-000 to Vincent
3 Hughes, and his attomey Williaxn L. Walker, the sum of $45,000 in full settlement of his claims for
4 damages arising from his arrest and encounter with St. Paul police officers on May 21, 2002.
� Green Sfieet Green
d�f-992
Sfieet Green Sheet Green Sfieet Green Sheet Green Sheet
�
DepartmerM/office/council: Date Initiated:
cA �ityAttomey ,�T� Green Sheet NO: 3023502
Contact Person & Phone� De�rtmeM SeM To Person InitiaVDate
Portia Hampton-Flowers � 0 i A me Cti Atto
�� Assign 1 a or's Office or OfPce
Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number Z o ncil Council
20.0CT-04 For
Roufing 3 ' Clerk ' Cierk
Order <
5
6
ToWI # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Lowtions for Signature)
Action Requested:
The CAO recommends approval of a Resolution authorizing settlement of Hughes v. City of St. Paul in the amount of $45,000.
Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions:
Planning Commission 1. Has this person/firtn ever worked under a contract for this department?
CIB Committee Yes No �
Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person�rm ever been a ciiy employee?
Yes No
3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not nortnally possessed by any
current city employee?
Yes No
Ezplain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet
Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
Hughes brought an acdon in U.5. Dist. Court against City of St. Paul and St. Paul Police Officers J. Stiff and R. McAlpine alleging
constiturional violations. Plainriff is alleging certain facts wluch, if believed by a jury, would result in a jury detemvnation that the
officers violated Hughes' constitutional rights. This would require the City to compensate Hughes for damages and pay his attomey's
fees. The Court also could awacd punirive damages. Setttement is not an admission of liability.
AdvantageslfApproved:
The City wouid avoid the costs and risks of hial as well as the exposure to an awazd of punitve damages and attomey fees. If approved,
the proposed settlement would allow the City to dispose of the case without an admission of IiabIlity or a nega6ve determination by the
Court.
DisadvantaaeslfApproved:
I None.
I Disadvantages If Not Approved:
, The jury could determine that a consritutional violation occurred, awazd compensatory damages, attomey's fees and punirive damages.
Total Amount of 45000 Cost/Revenue Budgeted: y
Trensaction:
Fundinp Source: TOrt Liability Activitv Number: 09070
Financial Information:
(Explain)
o �- 99 2
Interdepartmental Memorandum
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
DATE: October 13, 2004
TO: Councilmembers
FROM: Portia Hampton-Flowers � f �y
Assistant City Attorney ��
RE: Vincent R. Hughes v. City of St. Paul, et al
The CAO has negotiated a settlement in the above-referenced lawsuit. Under the proposed
settlement, the Plaintiff would dismiss all claims against the City of St. Paul and the individual
officers named as Defendants in the case in exchange for a$45,000 payment. By this memorandum
the CAO is requesting approval of the proposed settlement.
The lawsuit developed from an incident in which Officers Stiff and McAlpine detained and
arrested Vincent Hughes in front ofhis home. In the early morning hours ofMay 21, 2002, Officers
Stiff and McAlpine saw Plaintiff emerge from a row ofparked cazs neaz 1009 Western Avenue. The
Officers stopped their squad car neaz Plaintiff and asked ifhe lived there. According to the officers,
Plaintiff refused to answer, became belligerent with the Officers, and refused to remove his hands
from his pockets as requested. Plaintiff, however, claims that he told the officers he lived in the
house and complied with the officers' order to remove his hands from lus pocket.
After a brief exchange, Officers Stiff and McAlpine took Piaintiff to the ground, handcuffed
him, arrested him and placed him in the back of the squad car. According to the officers, Plaintiff
then informed them that he lived at 1009 Western Avenue and was just retuming home from
working t he 1 ate shift at the Ford Motor Company. During the course of the arrest, Plaintiff
sustained multiple facial abrasions, a fractured tooth, and various bruises. Plaintiffwas transported
to Regions Hospital where he refused medical treatment. Plaintiff was booked and charged with
obshuction of legal process. Those charges were later dismissed.
Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit against the City, Officer Stiff and Officer McAlpine in United
States District Court. The Complaint alleges Officers Sriff and McAlpine assaulted, and falsely
arrested Plaintiff based upon his race. The Complaint alleges violations of the Fourth Amendment,
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
oy 992
Memorandum
Councilmembers
October 13, 2004
Page Two
Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, § 1983, § 1985, § 1986, and the Minnesota Human Rights
Act. The Complaint also asserts negligence and constitutional claims against the City by alieging
that the officers acted in furtherance of an alleged unconstiturional policy.
The parties conducted discovery and the CAO prepazed a summary judgment motion to
dismiss several of the claims against the City and the officers. Due to disputes of fact, the City did
not move for suuunary judgment on PlaintifPs excessive force and assault claims. Consequently
those claims would have survived the motion and proceeded to trial.
The City's motion was argued before United States District Court Judge Ann Montgomery
on July 23, 2004. At the conclusion of the arguments, Judge Montgomery ordered the parties to
participate in a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Janie Mayeron. The Court ordered this
settlement conference to occur prior to issuing a ruling on the motion.
On October 5, 2004, the parties appeared before Magistrate Mayeron for a settlement
conference. Council member Lee Helgen attended the settlement conference. During the
conference, the parties agreed to settle the case for $45,000 pending City Council approval.
Given the City's liability exposure, the costs and uncertainties of a trial, the CAO believes
the proposed $45,000 settlement is reasonable. If this case proceeds to trial, the City's liability
exposure will be significantly higher than the proposed settlement amount. If the jury determines
that excessive force was used, the City could be held liable for compensatory damages, punifive
damages, and Plainriff's attorneys fees. The CAO recommends approval ofthe proposed settlement.
Please let me laiow ifyouhave any quesrions orrequire any addirional information regazding
this case.
PHF/jer
cc: Manuel Cervantes, City Attorney
Dennis Flaherty, Deputy Mayor
AA-ADA-EEO Employer