photo by: Mackenzie Clark/Journal-World illustration; Shutterstock background

Three unrelated lawsuits, filed in January 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, allege wrongdoing of Lawrence police officers.

Two unrelated lawsuits accuse Lawrence police officers of violating people’s constitutional rights, and a third alleges that officers used excessive force in a man’s arrest.

Further, one plaintiff’s attorney told the Journal-World that unconstitutional conduct is “common” and “persistent” among law enforcement officers in Kansas.

All three lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas during the second half of January.

Lawrence police Sgt. Amy Rhoads, public affairs officer, directed questions to the City of Lawrence. Porter Arneill, a spokesman for the city, said the city had not yet been served with the complaints and therefore would not comment.

• • •

A lawsuit filed Wednesday states that a Lawrence police officer unlawfully detained, searched and arrested a man, and it attributes the officer’s actions to “inadequate policies and training” of the City of Lawrence, Police Chief Gregory Burns Jr. and Douglas County Sheriff Ken McGovern.

The plaintiff, Orlando Calvo Pino, was a resident of Colorado when Officer Matthew Weidl pulled him over just before 2 a.m. Feb. 2, 2018. Calvo Pino was westbound on Interstate 70 with a puppy in the front seat and a bag of dog food in the back. Weidl realized that Calvo Pino spoke little English, so the two went to Weidl’s patrol car and contacted an interpreter to translate.

Then, the lawsuit says, Weidl said he was going to give Calvo Pino a written warning but then “started a lengthy interview,” asking Calvo Pino about his trip from Colorado to New York, whether he had family in the United States and more.

When Calvo Pino returned to his vehicle, Weidl asked whether he had anything illegal inside; Calvo Pino gave him permission to look through it. Officers found a pistol, a notebook with numbers and currency inside the bag of dog food. Calvo Pino said the money came from the sale of horses several days prior.

“A Douglas County District Court judge agreed with Calvo Pino’s argument that Weidl was acting on a hunch and that the facts as presented did not reach the level required of reasonable suspicion to prolong the traffic stop,” the lawsuit says. “The judge also concluded that Weidl’s questioning of Calvo Pino went beyond what was reasonable for a simple traffic stop for an activity that the officer immediately determined warranted only a written warning and that the questions sounded more like interrogation beyond the normal questions of where a driver is coming from and their destination.”

A felony charge against Calvo Pino, of unlawful acts involving proceeds derived from a drug crime, was ultimately dismissed as a result of the judge’s ruling. However, the lawsuit states that Calvo Pino had to travel to Kansas 11 times for court appearances at a cost of approximately $500 per trip, and that he and his wife had their credit destroyed because of the seizure of currency. He also had to pay attorneys’ fees for his defense.

“Being formally and falsely arrested was bewildering and frightening, and when family and friends learned of it, it was humiliating and embarrassing,” the lawsuit says. “He was humiliated and apprehensive while in custody overnight and the overall experience has caused him to suffer anxiety and emotional pain and suffering.”

Weidl was assigned to the Lawrence-Douglas County Drug Enforcement Unit at the time of Calvo Pino’s arrest, the lawsuit says. The unit is a joint operation of LPD and the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office.

The lawsuit says that the leaders of both agencies failed to provide adequate training to prevent officers from “unlawfully and unreasonably detaining citizens”; “telling citizens, including Calvo Pino, that they are free to go but then unlawfully searching” their vehicles; and unlawfully arresting individuals “without probable cause based only on a mere hunch and on evidence discovered and seized during an unlawful search conducted without a warrant,” among other things.

The lawsuit seeks “damages in an amount sufficient to punish” the defendants and to deter similar conduct in the future.

“A Kansas state judge has determined already that the conduct of the officer in this matter was unconstitutional,” Calvo Pino’s attorney, Arthur Benson II, told the Journal-World via email Friday.

Benson continued that Calvo Pino “now seeks to recover damages for the constitutional injuries he suffered and by doing so to shine a light on this common, persistent, and unconstitutional conduct by law-enforcement officers in Kansas. Hopefully by this means effective supervision, training and accountability can bring law-enforcement activities into alignment with the constitution.”

In an email to the Journal-World on Friday, Jenn Hethcoat, public information officer for the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office, wrote, “While we prefer to be as forthcoming with information as possible we have been advised not to provide a statement regarding the pending case filed by Orlando Calvo Pino.”

• • •

A lawsuit filed on Jan. 17 alleges that a Lawrence police officer violated a citizen’s First Amendment rights and that a department policy on stalking is vague, overly broad and unconstitutional.

The case arises from a Douglas County District Court case, which is now sealed, and the Kansas Court of Appeals ruling that vacated a woman’s sentence for what was charged as violating a protection from stalking order.

Lisa Smith, of Lawrence, and her neighbor had a history of conflict, including making criminal allegations against each other, according to the Court of Appeals opinion. Smith had accused the neighbor of sexual misconduct against a child, and in April 2017, both Smith and the neighbor received temporary orders of protection from stalking (PFS) against each other. The courts often grant a temporary PFS order pending an in-person hearing, where a judge can hear from both parties and determine whether a final PFS order is justified.

However, the judge only granted the neighbor’s final PFS order against Smith. That order lasted one year and forbade Smith from making “direct or indirect disparaging statements in public regarding plaintiff being a child molest[e]r.” Months later, when Smith arrived home and her neighbor was outside, she turned toward her husband and told him to “come inside away from the pedophile.”

Smith was convicted and sentenced to probation, but the Court of Appeals found that the PFS was a content-based prior restraint on speech and presumptively unconstitutional.

“The State has shown no compelling interest in prohibiting, via the protection from stalking statute, non-threatening speech that does not subject the hearer to a reasonable fear of physical harm,” the opinion says.

Lawrence defense attorney Adam Hall represented Smith for her appeal. Max Kautsch, a Lawrence attorney whose practice focuses on First Amendment rights and open government law, is representing her in her civil case.

The lawsuit says that Officer Joshua Doncouse, of LPD, wrote the probable cause affidavit supporting Smith’s arrest for her comments; it attributes this to the City of Lawrence, named as a defendant along with Doncouse, inadequately training officers on constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression.

“The City of Lawrence did not provide adequate supervision to prevent Defendant Doncouse from signing and submitting for prosecution the affidavit criminalizing the exercise of Ms. Smith’s clearly established constitutional rights,” the lawsuit says.

LPD’s policy on stalking names “any act of communication” in a list of courses of conduct that may constitute a violation of a PFS; the lawsuit argues that this is overly broad and vague. The policy also defines stalking as engaging in one of the listed courses of conduct “recklessly” rather than only intentionally, which the lawsuit claims is a violation of the First Amendment and is similarly overly broad, vague and content-based.

The lawsuit calls for a declaratory judgment that LPD’s policy on stalking is unconstitutional and that the city fails to train officers regarding the right to free speech and expression. It asks for an injunction to prevent enforcement of the unconstitutional portions of the policy on stalking. In addition, it requests damages for Smith.

“Neither I nor my client have any comment at this time; the case has not yet been served,” Kautsch told the Journal-World via email Friday.

• • •

A third lawsuit, filed pro se, accuses two Lawrence police officers of excessive force.

The Journal-World reported on Donavan R. Hiller’s criminal case in October. The police affidavit supporting his arrest, which was written by a detective not named in Hiller’s lawsuit, alleged that Hiller told his date that “the Devil told him she needed to die,” sexually assaulted her and hit her in the head with a stainless steel skillet.

Those allegations have not been proved in court, and Hiller’s criminal case is set for a bench trial to begin March 16. Hiller has remained in custody of the Douglas County Jail since his arrest on $50,000 cash or surety bond, according to jail records.

Hiller filed on his own behalf a civil complaint on grounds of prisoner civil rights on Jan. 27. Such pro se lawsuits are not uncommon; according to the court’s website, of the 100 most recent cases filed, 32 were pro se lawsuits on the same grounds.

The handwritten document Hiller filed alleges that two Lawrence police officers “assaulted” him with a Taser after he opened the door for them and “stood in the entryway, silent, unarmed, and in shock.”

He wrote that the Taser shock caused him to fall and strike the back of his head on a coffee table; then one of the officers “removed (T)aser probes from my flesh in violation of my rights to be processed by a licensed healthcare professional,” Hiller wrote. He was never read his Miranda warning or placed under arrest during the ordeal until he was interviewed later at the hospital, according to his filing.

The police affidavit in Hiller’s criminal case alleges that at the hospital, he told a detective that when police showed up to his home, “he held a knife to his throat because he was scared he violated probation and would go to jail.” In his booking photo from the jail, a scratch is visible on his neck. The affidavit does corroborate that a Taser was deployed in his arrest, but it states that Hiller was not compliant with officers’ commands.

As the incident is now part of a pending lawsuit, the Lawrence Police Department on Friday would not confirm whether the two officers Hiller accuses of using excessive force had in fact responded to the incident, nor whether any internal investigations regarding the incident were pending or had completed. Neither officer is listed as a witness in the charging document filed against Hiller, nor mentioned by name in the police affidavit. However, one is listed as the arresting officer in the jail’s booking log; the other was recently the subject of an internal investigation after another man accused him of causing injuries during his arrest.

Hiller seeks a court hearing, “all medical costs arising from treatment of issues stemming from police brutality covered,” financial compensation for physical, mental and emotional suffering, and for the officers to be fully investigated, according to his filing.

No attorneys had filed entries of appearance on behalf of the city in any of the three lawsuits as of noon Friday.