95-824�R1GI�lA�.
Council File # 9s��`
Green Sheet # 28612
RESOLUTiON
SAINT PAUL, MWNESOTA
Presented
Referred To
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
County District Court
Requested by Department o£:
City ttorney
B � �'��`��..
Adopted by Council: Date
Adoption Certified by Counc' S etary
By:
Appr
By:
�t,3
Committee: Date
RESOLVED, that upon execution and delivery of a release in full to the City of Saint
Paul, the proper Ciry officers are hereby authorized and d'uected to pay out of the Tort
Liability Fund 09070-0511 to Merilyn Ludwig the sum of $75,000.00 in full settlement of her
claim for damages sustained as a result of her son being shot and killed by St. Paul police
officers on September 22, 1990.
Form Approved by City Attorney
By. ° G/(/�' �� o�U/G'—.� C�3 d/S J
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By: ���
APPROVED:
. . .. . ........�._ ,< <-P ..-n�a.,^-..��5^a .: 'stc„ ,.;;.:Y�x.:.�...:.�%-.�•>'st�Y° .
.,� 9s�.�y .
DEPARTMENT/OFPICE/COUNCIL DATE �NITIATE� IV �. L O V S L ,
City Attorney e/as/9s GREEN SHEE
CANTACT PERSpN 8 PHONE INIT19�ATE INRIAVOATE
�DEPARTMENTDIREGTOR �CffYCAUNCIL
Pamela F. Hutton, 266-8726 A��N [,�cmmloaNev , 9S �CffYCLEFIK
NUYBERFOR
MUST BE ON CpUNCIL AGENDA BY (�ATE) p �� BUDGET DIflECTOH � FIN. & MGf. SEFVICES �IR.
ORDEN 1'V� MAYOR (OF ASSISTgNT) ❑
VJ
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
ACTION REQUESTED: .
Approval o£ resolution settling claim of Merilyn Ludwig against
the Cit�y of St. Paul for $75,000.
RECqMMENDAT10N5: Appmve (A) or ilejeet (F) pERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING �UESTIONS:
_ PL4NNING COMMISSION _ CIVIL SEqVICE GOMMISSION �� Has thi5 pBrSOnHiRn 8V2f WOfketl U�def d COMfdd fOf thiS department?
_CIBCOMMfiTEE _ �'ES NO
_ S7qFF 2. Has this person/firm ever been a ciry employee?
— YES NO
_ Di57RiCT COURi _ 3. Does ihis person/hrm possess a sKill not normally posses� by,gry_pp I
SUPPORTSWHICHCOUNCILO&IECTIVE? YES NO Vifaa�+� ����
Explain all yes anawers on separate sheet anE attach to green sheM
JISL 07 1985
INITIATING PPOBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY (Who, What, When, Where, Why). �
_".._�. .�a�,sa'+m�-"'r
On September 22, 1990, St. Paul police answered call to
investigate a man living in the brush behind Wendy's restaurant on
the East Side. Ultimately, eight (8) officers responded, but the
initial response was by two officers. Immediately upon police
arrival, James Ludwig, whom police sought to question, demonstrated
� ' rge i e.
A � A � A �fe re used orders to drop the weapon.� Though Ludwig then retreated
on foot, he continually refused to surrender the knife and
threatened police with it. Based on what the officers observed,
they reasonably concluded that anyone within the zone of danger of
21' to Ludwig would be harmed or killed. As the incident unfolded,
officers also believed that bystanders who had been seen in the
area were in imminent threat of grave bodily harm or death if
Ludwig either chose to take someone ca tive or suddenl m v
DISADVA �F P� ion o an on-looker. Ludwig was told numerous times to
give up the knife, but he refused, challenging police to. either
kill him or that he would kill them. Police tried various means to
secure Ludwig's compliance, including placing themselves within the
zone of danger and talking to him, macing him, and trying to
deflect him with a squad car. However, all efforts at non-iethal
containment failed. When Ludwig fled quickly in the vicinity af
bystanders after a second attempt at macinq proved useless, he was
s o
DISADVA�FiS2 F�y�r� PR O�B:seph Strong, both of whom believed that further
1
containment was impossible and that the threat Ludwig posed to
bystanders in the area was now too great a risk to take:�� Ludwig
was pronounced dead at the scene. His mother sued the City`and two
of the involved officers under 42 U.S.C. §1983 (and lo@ged state -
tort claims), alleging the City had inadequately trained its
officers to recognize and handle emotionally disturbed persons
(unbeknownst to police, Ludwig was paranoid schizophrenic and
' s se unoons i u ional �orce in seizing Ludwia.
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION $ 7 S,( 11g COSTlREVENUE BUOGE7ED (CIRClE ONE) YES r NO
FUNDIfdGSOURCE `Pnrt 7 .i ahil '�3j ACTIVI7YNUMBER non�n
PINANCIAL INFORMATION (EXPLAIN)
�s �a�
The City Attorney was successful in having the suit against the
officers dismissed by the trial court, based upon the federal
defense of "qualified iaununity," but this decision was reversed by
the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals which held the claims against
all defendants should proceed to trial. (A petition for a
rehearing of that decision was recently denied.) Plaintiff's
expert opined that the City had ineffectively trained its officers
and that the seizure of Ludwig was excessive, in violation of the
Fourth Amendment. Defendants' expert disagreed, opining there was
nothing unreasonable in this action, since it was dictated by
necessity, exigent circumstances, and the threat posed by Ludwig to
innocent bystanders in the area. Plaintiff's demand was for
$750,000.00. After negotiations, plaintiff and defendants agreed
on a compromise settlement in the sum of $75,000.00. We
respectfully request approval of this settlement agreement.