Man awarded 1.1 million in entrapment case

[bigguyinpasadena]

CIVIL RIGHTS

 

 

 

 

GAY CITY NEWS

 

Alejandro Martinez, who was awarded $1.1. million on a federal civil rights complaint related to a lewdness arrest, with his attorney, Michael L. Spiegel.

 

Cops’ Entrapment Scheme Busted

 

 

New Jersey gay man awarded $1.1 million in civil rights claim on 2000 lewdness arrest

 

By DUNCAN OSBORNE

 

 

For 13 years, Alejandro Martinez rode the PATH train from New Jersey to his job as a food service manager for a Wall Street firm in Lower Manhattan. He took the same morning train and arrived at the World Trade Center just before 6 a.m. every workday.

 

 

It was a very ordinary commute until February 1, 2000 when he used the men’s room in the Trade Center PATH station and was arrested for public lewdness by the Port Authority police.

 

 

Martinez was held for 18 hours. He endured anti-gay abuse and threats of violence from the police. Several months later, Martinez encountered an arresting officer in the Trade Center and he was taunted by the cop as he walked through the building.

In September of 2000, Martinez was acquitted of the public lewdness charge in a state trial. On November 18 of this year, a federal jury awarded him $1.1 million dollars after finding that not only had his rights been violated, but that the Port Authority had a policy of making such arrests.

 

 

“Thank God this is over,” said the 49-year-old Martinez during an interview in his attorney’s office. “Maybe I can get back a little bit of myself, back to who I used to be.”

 

 

The past four years have been a struggle as Martinez has battled depression and panic attacks that he said resulted from the arrest. It started when he entered the men’s room in 2000 and a man he later learned was a cop flirted with him.

 

 

“He looked at me,” Martinez said. “He gave me a smile.”

 

 

Martinez ignored him and went to the urinal. He noticed that the man kept glancing around at the other men in the bathroom.

 

 

“He started looking at me, looking around, and back and forth,” he said.

 

 

When Martinez went to wash his hands the man stood between him and the sinks so he quickly left. The man followed him outside, called him back, and said, “You know you are under arrest.”

 

 

Another plainclothes officer came up to the two of them and said, “Wow, look how fast you got the first one” and the first officer responded “Yeah, I did a good trap,” according to Martinez.

 

 

When he objected, Martinez said the first officer clenched his fist in front of his face and said, “You calling me a liar? You want me to break your teeth?”

 

 

Later, as he was being processed, Martinez said he heard another officer refer to him and the six other men arrested on that morning as “faggots” and “queers.”

 

 

One man who had been arrested was crying and asking aloud what he would tell his wife. An officer responded with, “I can’t do anything about that. I’ve got a quota to fill,” according to Martinez.

 

 

Michael L. Spiegel, who represented Martinez, said he produced evidence in the federal trial that the Port Authority cops had to fill arrest quotas and that statement was part of the evidence to support that.

 

 

Spiegel elicited testimony from a Port Authority witness who said that, before they began making arrests that morning, the cops had been told to put all of their arrests on one criminal complaint. The seven arrests they made that morning are on one form.

 

 

“They anticipated making multiple arrests that morning,” Spiegel said. “That was part of our argument, that there was a quota.”

 

 

Later, when Martinez was calling Frank Adamowicz, his partner of 25 years, to tell him he had been arrested, another officer grabbed the phone from his hands and told Adamowicz, “‘We caught him jerking off in the bathroom.’ He said it twice,” Martinez said.

 

 

In June of 2000, as he was walking with Adamowicz through the World Trade Center on the way to a court appearance, Martinez said one of the officers taunted them.

 

 

“He came up behind me and he screamed ‘Martinez,’” he said. “He started walking behind us.”

 

 

The officer followed them until they stepped into a store to get away. As they exited the building, they had to pass between two officers, including the one who had screamed at him earlier who stood swatting his hand loudly with a newspaper.

 

 

“I was panicked, I was panicked,” Martinez said. “That day he scared me.”

 

 

Martinez struggled with depression following the arrest, and got help first from the New York City Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project (AVP) and then from a private therapist who diagnosed him with post-traumatic stress disorder. He reported having nightmares, panic attacks and thoughts of suicide.

 

 

“I got lost,” Martinez said. “I lost my life... I didn’t want to do nothing in my life anymore.”

 

 

Despite those problems, there was never any question that he was going to challenge the charge in court.

 

 

“When I came home I said, ‘Frank it’s time to stop this harassment of the gay community,’” Martinez said. “I wanted to fight. I wanted my rights. I wanted to fight for the gay community.”

 

 

The state trial on the criminal charge, before a judge, lasted an afternoon. The verdict came quickly.

 

 

“There wasn’t a breath between the last words out of the DA’s mouth asking the judge to find him guilty and the judge saying ‘Well I find him not guilty,’” Spiegel said.

 

 

The Manhattan district attorney’s office called just one officer to testify in the case. Spiegel called two other cops and Martinez. The inconsistencies in their stories were apparent, according to Spiegel.

 

 

“You could not accept one version without rejecting another version,” he said.

 

 

The federal civil rights trial this year lasted four days. The jury was told that to hold the Port Authority responsible, and not just the individual officers, they must find that “the action of the employee that deprived [Martinez] of his federal rights was a result of an official policy or practice, or a custom of the Port Authority.”

 

 

Spiegel said the Port Authority had a policy of making false arrests that relied on men pleading guilty to a lesser charge, usually disorderly conduct, following a public lewdness arrest.

 

 

“I think the overall thing is that this was a policy that took advantage of the humiliation of being arrested for public lewdness,” he said. “They counted on the fact that people were so humiliated that they would accept a guilty plea.”

 

 

Spiegel also sees the verdict as an endorsement of all that Martinez charged the police with.

 

 

“I look at it as the jury saying we fully believed him,” said Spiegel who was assisted on the federal case by Scott A. Korenbaum, an attorney. “They are saying we have no doubt that they are lying and you are telling the truth.”

 

 

A Port Authority spokesman said that it would appeal the verdict and would not comment on pending litigation.

 

 

Gay groups criticized the Trade Center arrests before the building was destroyed in the 2001 terrorist attack.

 

 

“I think this is a complete vindication of what so many of us have thought all along,” said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. “It was clear, speaking to victim after victim after victim, that there was a pattern and practice of the Port Authority arresting men regardless of their activities.”

 

 

Spiegel introduced evidence during the trial showing that police made 234 public lewdness arrests there from 1996 to 2000. Foreman said the Martinez case showed that fighting the charges is the right choice.

 

 

“I think the lesson is always to fight and try to clear your name,” he said. “Everyone has to make that decision on their own, but if you decide to pursue it, you can win. The outrage is that men should have to go through this at all.”

 

 

Richard Haymes, AVP’s executive director, praised Martinez for challenging the Port Authority.

 

 

“For Mr. Martinez to stand up and expose the homophobic policies of the Port Authority is an incredibly courageous act,” he said. “We think this is an incredible victory not only for Mr. Martinez, but for the community. Each year we get several cases related to public lewdness that we know are false charges and basically harassment. Usually the victims just pay a fine and hope that it will all go away.”

 

 

 

We also publish:

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[noviceny]

Great article bigguy !!!

 

 

Im gonna send it to a few of my friends who always say, "Being gay isnt a stigma anymore...nobody gives a shit...its 2004

[Muscle Lover]

All of us a taxpayers will be paying this $1.1 milllion.

And ofcourse the sleezy trial lawyer will get his 40% take

[bigguyinpasadena]

Well if the police played fair there would be no need for these types of lawsuits.

But,for the most part,they are such bigoted swine with egos swollen by "power"that they will continue to fuck up-and costing the "taxpayers"more money.

[Paul Revere]

>All of us a taxpayers will be paying this $1.1 milllion.

>And ofcourse the sleezy trial lawyer will get his 40% take

 

Don't be mad at the plaintiff. Be mad at the cops, and their management who created this situation. They are the one's costing the taxpayers the money. There should be a way to take the $1.1 Million form the cops overtime pay.

[VaHawk]

>Don't be mad at the plaintiff. Be mad at the cops, and their

>management who created this situation. They are the one's

>costing the taxpayers the money. There should be a way to

>take the $1.1 Million form the cops overtime pay.

 

Each case is different of course, and there are many ugly cops out there engaged in anti-gay actions. But ask yourself, why the cops are at the "cruising spots" to begin with, and thus able to "entrap" these "gay?" men.

 

Perhaps, if there were not gay/str8/bi men who insisted in engaging in sexual encounters, in parks, rest areas, and bathrooms in office buildings and shopping malls, especially during daylight hours when such places are often frequented by children, then there would be no problem!

 

The cops don't throw a dart at a city map and pick these places to target, they do so because of the multiple complaints from citizens. Excuse me, but I fail to see the right of people to have sex in public parks and restrooms in broad daylight. They do so, for the "thrill" and I really have no sympathy for them when they are busted for doing so, or for falling into an "entrapment".

[Flower]

>The cops don't throw a dart at a city map and pick these

>places to target, they do so because of the multiple

>complaints from citizens. Excuse me, but I fail to see the

>right of people to have sex in public parks and restrooms in

>broad daylight. They do so, for the "thrill" and I really

>have no sympathy for them when they are busted for doing so,

>or for falling into an "entrapment".

 

Hawk--what am I missing--the guy did nothing wrong!

 

*pausing a moment to let that sink in* :+

 

He was taking a piss and the cop is trying to get him involved in sexual conduct so the cop can fill his quota--but Martinez is not going for it and the cop arrests him anyway--then continues to harrass him.

 

While the cops "may be there for a reason" this guy wasn't the reason--yet still no sympathy for him? Come on hawkster--not even a little? What if it were you instead of him? Or your friend Flower?

[Flower]

All of us a taxpayers will be paying this $1.1 milllion.

And of course the sleezy trial lawyer will get his 40% take

 

Muscle Lover

 

Interesting comment ML--why so bitter? If the judge or jury found in favor of the Port Authority, the attorney gets nothing. It's doubtful that Mr Martinez could pay the attorney by the hour, so the contingency fee gives them both something--but more important, it gives Mr Martinez and every person in our country the "keys to the courthouse" Rich or poor!

 

In these cases, unless there is a specific award of attorney fees (only in special circumstances or types of cases) the jury simple evaluates the Plaintiff's damages if they find liability--it is the plaintiff, from his award, that has to pay his attorney the percentage.

 

There are many cases that this and other plaintiff attorneys take where they don't win and thus have to "eat" the costs, fees, and their wasted hours and man power--what is so sleezy about this?

[Fit In LA]

The European system is far superior - loser pays.

 

If you have a good case, take it to court. But if you sue someone and lose, you pay the winners' costs.

 

Guess what, in Europe they have a fraction of the lawsuits we have in this country.

[woodlawn]

>Each case is different of course, and there are many ugly cops

>out there engaged in anti-gay actions. But ask yourself, why

>the cops are at the "cruising spots" to begin with, and thus

>able to "entrap" these "gay?" men.

 

In the first place, this case has nothing to do with "entrapment." A case in which the police simply lie and pretend that the defendant did something he didn't do is not entrapment, but a fraud on the court. Simply put, entrapment occurs when the defendant DOES commit an unlawful act but does so at the behest of a law enforcement agent rather than as a result of his own criminal intent.

 

 

>Perhaps, if there were not gay/str8/bi men who insisted in

>engaging in sexual encounters, in parks, rest areas, and

>bathrooms

 

>The cops don't throw a dart at a city map and pick these

>places to target, they do so because of the multiple

>complaints from citizens.

 

It's true that if the cops had no reason to believe this sort of thing went on in such public places, they wouldn't set up sting operations in those places. That is what I keep trying to explain to escorts who complain about sting operations set up to catch them in hotels -- if someone wasn't complaining about prostitution in such places then the stings would not be happening there. But that certainly doesn't justify the actions of a cop who makes up a phony story about a defendant who actually did nothing.

 

> They do so, for the "thrill" and I really

>have no sympathy for them when they are busted for doing so,

>or for falling into an "entrapment".

 

Regarding entrapment, see above. Regarding sex in public places, I share your distate for people who have some weird desire to expose themselves in public. Perhaps if more of them got psychiatric help rather than yielding to their desires the cops would not be harassing innocent gay men to quite such an extent.

[Flower]

>The European system is far superior - loser pays.

>

>If you have a good case, take it to court. But if you sue

>someone and lose, you pay the winners' costs.

>

>Guess what, in Europe they have a fraction of the lawsuits we

>have in this country.

 

Hmmm...interesting "statistics." Would you mind sharing what study or informed source you are using for all of "EUROPE."

 

Based on what you are saying, this is true in Spain, GB, Ireland, France and all other countries in "Europe," correct?

 

I'll be the first to tell you that I know nothing of the various legal systems in the multitude of countries composing "Europe," but I doubt they are all the same system -- France at least should be out of line with the rest

 

That being said, there may very well be many (and I'm sure that there are at least some, if you say so) countries that have a "loser pays all" system and I certainly agree that then they do, it will cut down the number of lawsuits.

 

BUT, it also deprives a lot of deserving less affluent people from suing the GM's and the Ford's because, despite the fact that their father, mother, son or daughter was killed by a defective product or negligent operation of a vehicle or piece of machinery, they are just barely making it financially and notwithstanding the merits of their claim, they simply cannot risk going over the edge financially if they were to lose.

 

It would probably have prevented most of the law suits by adults that were abused as children by the clergy from bringing their lawsuits, or the suits brought concerning the Love Canal Toxic Chemical dumping, the lawsuit against Texeco for Racial Discrimination in the workplace and many many more.

 

I won't try and convince you that what you are appear to be advocating lacks compassion and denies opportunity to the underprivileged while presenting no barriers to the wealthy whatsoever in accessing our courts--if you agree with that philosophy, then it would be like trying to tell you that you should be a blue state rather than a red state--I'm sure your mind is made up.