Opinion ID: 770823
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: A Course of Unlawful Conduct

Text: 10 Plaintiffs allegations go beyond the immediate circumstances surrounding their shootings. In addition to arguing SIS officers lacked probable cause to use deadly force against them at the time of the shootings, plaintiffs allege they were victims of a course of unlawful conduct developed and engaged in by SIS members. Plaintiffs allege evidence of the officers' conduct in the common course incidents, taken together with other evidence, will establish a continuing course of unlawful conduct which has the following elements: 11 1. SIS officers commence surveillance of one or more identified persons suspected of having committed prior armed robberies characterized by a particular modus operandi. 12 2. On a night when a new robbery is expected to occur, SIS officers commence surveillance at or around the time the suspects enter their car on the way to the robbery. 13 3. They follow the suspects to the scene of the sus pected robbery. 14 4. They ignore probable cause to arrest, and allow the robbery to occur without any effort to pre vent it. 15 5. After the robbery is complete, they jam  the suspects in a confined space at or inside the sus pects' car. 16 6. Whether or not the suspects offer any actual or legitimately perceived threat, the officers com mence shooting at the suspects, and do not stop shooting until all but one of the suspects is dead. 17 7. They cover up the truth of the relevant events by fabricating evidence that officers only shot per sons who posed an immediate threat to the officers or others, and by corroborating the existence of such threats through falsification of police reports and providing perjurious testimony at both civil and criminal trials. 18 According to plaintiffs, the unlawful course of conduct outlined above is knowingly condoned by other named public official defendants, all of whom are in a position to prevent it. Specifically, plaintiffs contend all of the public official defendants knowingly maintain policies that intentionally ignore the officers' code of silence, assume the truthfulness of officers' versions of use of force events, and unfairly discount or ignore all impeaching evidence. According to plaintiffs, these policies allow police officers to escape accountability for their unconstitutional acts of excessive force. Plaintiffs further argue that SIS officers knowingly rely on these policies and practices when committing unlawful acts of excessive force.