Opinion ID: 2967399
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: e. breaking and entering.

Text: The deputies asked the Parks a few questions, and the Parks provided the deputies with their names and address and related the events that led to the 911 call. Deputy Shiflett inspected the store and found nothing to indicate a forced entry. No merchandise appeared out of place and nothing appeared to be missing. The only thing suspicious was that a cash drawer, containing only loose change, was lying on the floor in the office. Because the Parks planned on only a brief trip to the store, they mistakenly left the stove burner on under the canner. The Parks became concerned about the potential fire hazard at their home, and Mrs. Park entered the store to inquire as to why the deputies were taking so long. Mrs. Park was ordered to wait outside by Deputy Shiflett. When the deputies emerged from the store, the Parks informed them of their concern about the fire hazard at their home and asked that at least one of them be allowed to go home and turn off the stove; the deputies refused to let them leave. Mrs. Park decided to make another 911 call to request that the fire department be sent to her home to turn off the pressure cooker. During the call, Mr. Park, against the orders of the officers, began to walk away to return home. Deputy Simms grabbed Mr. Park and told him that he was being detained until the owner of the store arrived, but that he was not under arrest. He placed Mr. Park in handcuffs and directed him toward the building. Deputy Shiflett then kicked Mr. Park’s legs apart and threw him up against the building. At no time did Mr. Park physically resist arrest, nor did he ever verbally or physically threaten the officers. However, officer Simms testified that Mr. Park was not cooperative. In the midst of her second 911 call, Mrs. Park turned around and saw her husband pressed up against the front of the store and being handcuffed. Mrs. Park claims that she ran toward her husband and was grabbed by Deputy Shiflett. The officers claim that Mrs. Park initiated the contact by grabbing Deputy Shiftlett. It is undisputed, however, that Deputy Shiflett twisted Mrs. Park’s arm behind her back, threw her up against the building, and handcuffed her. He sprayed her 4 PARK v. SHIFLETT twice in the eyes with Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) spray from close range.1 The effects of OC spray include (1) dilation of the capillaries and instant closing of the eyes through swelling of the eyelids, (2) immediate respiratory inflammation, including uncontrollable coughing, retching, shortness of breath and gasping for air with a gagging sensation in the throat, and (3) immediate burning sensations to the mucous membranes, skin and inside the nose and mouth. Mrs. Park suffered each of these effects. Deputy Shiflett then transported Mrs. Park to the Louisa County Sheriff’s Department. Upon arriving, Deputy Shifflet took Mrs. Park inside, tripping and pushing her as she entered. He then threw Mrs. Park into a cell. Later that evening Deputy Shiflett transported Mrs. Park to the regional jail in Orange, Virginia. During this drive, Deputy Shiflett manipulated the volume of the car radio in a menacing and harassing fashion. It is not disputed that following the owner’s examination of the store, nothing appeared amiss and no crime was committed. The Parks were not charged with any crime and were released. As a result of the incident, Mrs. Park claims that she suffers from severe Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and will continue to do so in the future. Mr. Park claims damages as a result of unlawful arrest, including battery, humiliation and harassment. 1 The Louisa County Sheriff’s Department (LSCD) Rules and Regulations Manuel directs officers not to use OC spray at distances less than three feet. In addition, after one application of spray, the deputy is directed to wait and observe the effects of the spray to determine whether another application is necessary. Mrs. Park was sprayed twice at a range of approximately 18 inches, without the requisite delay between sprays. The LCSD manual also provides guidelines to be followed after application of OC spray. Subjects who are sprayed with OC should be monitored and verbally reassured that they are safe . . . . The subject(s), if wet with OC should dry before transporting. The deputies in this matter failed to reassure Mrs. Park, and poured water over Mrs. Park such that the residue from the spray washed directly into her eyes. PARK v. SHIFLETT 5 The district court, based on a long bench trial in front of a Magistrate Judge B. Waugh Crigler of the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville, in which the parties testified to the events as they claim they occurred, awarded damages of $450,000 to Mrs. Park and $50,000 to Mr. Park respectively.