The security chiefs will have to defend themselves against a federal lawsuit against the police

Commissioner of Police Station, Henry Escaleraas well as other high-ranking uniformed officers, will not be protected by so-called “qualified immunity” to face a federal lawsuit for excessive use of force against a citizen during the demonstration of May 1, 2018.

Escalera and other officers responded to the trial Wednesday, according to the federal judge Jay García Gregory has determined that the trial of Yadira Carrasquillo González will continue, as it contains sufficient allegations of violations of constitutional rights.

García Gregory emphasized that “the request for revocation on the basis of qualified immunity is rejected. The facts alleged by the applicant constitute a violation of the rights set forth in the First and Fourth Amendments ”of the United States Constitution.

“Moreover, freedom of expression and the right to be free from excessive use of force are clearly established rights,” he added.

The term “qualified immunity” refers to the protection that law enforcement officers have against the proceedings for the performance of their official duties.

Represented by Union for American Civil Liberties (ACLU, for its acronym in English), Carrasquillo González filed a lawsuit against Escalera, the former secretary of the Department of Public Safety (DSP), Hector Pesquera, and the then governor Ricardo Rosselló Nevares, as well as other officers involved in police operations during the demonstration.

Carrasquillo González was caught in photos and videos of several people who noticed how a police officer sprayed pepper spray in front of the woman, who was alone and unarmed, while shouting slogans in the middle of Luis Muñoz Rivera Boulevard in Hato Rey .

“One of the green-clad officers grabbed her and pushed her. Subsequently, another officer dressed in green pepper spray or another chemical on his face for a long time, at a close and dangerous distance, “says the trial of Carrasquillo González, who identifies himself as a veteran of the Iraq war as a member of the United States Armed Forces.

“The attacks on the applicant renewed the post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) that the applicant had suffered from her active service in the Armed Forces,” he added.

A motion on behalf of several defendants responded that none of them is indicated in the trial as “participating in the physical / verbal intervention that would have resulted in the deprivation of the defendant’s constitutional rights.”

He added that the trial did not expose the defendants to sufficient liability, in their capacity as supervisors, for the damage suffered.

In turn, The federal judge ruled that Carrasquillo González’s claim for financial compensation on behalf of the Government of Puerto Rico, as the 11th Amendment to the Constitution does not allow this under the current conditions.

However, García Gregory determined that he could participate in the claim for reparation and the claim for compensation, as well as in the claim for financial compensation in the personal capacity of the defendants.

The lawsuit calls for a preliminary and standing order to “prohibit defendants and police officers from re-engaging in this illegal and unconstitutional conduct.”

It also calls for an order for the Government of Puerto Rico to negotiate an amendment to Police reform with United States Department of Justice to incorporate a permanent civilian oversight mechanism into the Uniformat, which “allows independent citizens to oversee police practices”, as in other police reforms.

“The plaintiff has filed sufficient claims against the co-defendants,” Garcia Gregory said in his order to continue the case.

Referring to current laws and other cases, the judge stressed that “supervisors can be held liable on their own facts and omissions.”

He added that this required “one of the subordinates of that supervisor to limit the applicant’s constitutional right” and that “the supervisor’s action or inaction was affirmatively linked to that conduct, in the sense that it could be characterized as an approval, pardon or consent or gross negligence which amounts to deliberate indifference ‘.

“A defendant does not have to personally participate in an alleged constitutional violation in order to answer,” the judge said.

García Gregory also referred to the Police Reform case, recalling that the U.S. Department of Justice trial and legal action have left the Uniform Police aware of a pattern of excessive use of force that poses “a high risk of harm to any citizen.” intervened by the Police ”.

“Furthermore, the lawsuit alleges that the defendants failed to address the risk of implementing and enforcing the terms of the agreement (for reform),” the judge said. “This is enough to survive the dismissal stage.”