I have used this blog to provide extensive coverage of the lawsuit my clients have brought against Minnesota Law Enforcement Officers who picked them up and administered street drugs to them. They were subsequently subjected to the police officers' pseudo-scientific tests to determine whether or not they were under the influence of drugs. Today, the remaining Defendants objected to Magistrate Noel's Report and Recommendation that the lawsuit move forward. Here is a recap of this blog's coverage of this suit:
Motions to Dismiss Brought by the Defendants
Motions to Dismiss and Plaintiffs' Response to these motions
Magistrate Noel Issues Report and Recommendation that Lawsuit Move Forward
The remaining Defendants, have objected to Magistrate Noel's Report and Recommendation that the lawsuit move forward. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation can be adopted by the Article III Judge assigned to the case, the Honorable John Tunheim. If the report is adopted by Judge Tunheim, the Defendants will be able to engage in discovery, that is they will have the ability to ask questions, take depositions and obtain documents related to the Minnesota Drug Evaluator program's experiments that were performed upon them.
In their objection, these licensed peace officers argue that even if everything the Plaintiffs say is true, they are immune and should never have to answer for this conduct. Magistrate Judge Noel disagreed with this position, in his strongly worded opinion, he stated: "...the facts of this case smack of arbitrary government action coupled with de minimis legitimate state interest." (page 15). The peace officers also argued that the "failure to train" claim brought by the Plaintiffs was without merit and should be dismissed. Magistrate Noel also disagreed with this, stating: "In the Court’s view, any law enforcement officer who provides an illicit drug to citizens recruited from the streets of an urban center for the purpose of observing them while they are impaired has not received proper training." (pages 18-19).
The Defendants have requested a hearing before Judge Tunheim. There is no way of knowing whether this request will be granted or if it is granted when this hearing would occur. In any event, I will certainly keep this blog updated with any new information.