The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutR-86-0760V J-86-780 9/17/86 RESOLUTION NO. s6 60 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO PAY TO LAZARO PADRON THE SUM OF $30,000.00 WITHOUT THE ADMISSION OF LIABILITY, IN FULL AND COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF ANY AND ALL CLAIMS, DEMANDS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES AGAINST THE CITY OF MIAMI, FREDDY D'AGOSTINO AND ANTHONY BUSTILLO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS POLICE OFFICERS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI AND CLARENCE DICKSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, UPON EXECUTION OF A RELEASE RELEASING ALL DEFENDANTS FROM ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS. WHEREAS, LAZARO PADRON, through counsel, filed a lawsuit against the City of Miami and certain City of Miami employees for the injuries resulting from his being shot by City of Miami police officers on July 7, 1985; and WHEREAS, it is advantageous for the City of Miami to effect a settlement of said lawsuit including all claims, demands, and attorney's fees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The Director of the Department of Finance of the City of Miami is hereby authorized and directed to pay to LAZARO PADRON the sum of $30,000 in settlement of his lawsuit against the City of Miami, Freddy D'Agostino and Anthony Bustillo, Individually and as Police Officers of the City of Miami and Clarence Dickson, Individually and as Chief of Police of the City of Miami, filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 86-1810-Civ-DAVIS, said payment to be made upon the execution and filing of appropriate settlement documents in said lawsuit. I LMP/db/P098 4 j CITY OF MIAMI. r-LOR10A INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM Honorable Mayor and Members of September 120 1986 To: DATE: FILE: The City ommi�ssi.on LAZARO PADRON v. CITY OF MIAMI SUBJECT: D/L: 7/07/85 CIRCUIT COURT CASE 86�-31764 REMOVED TO FEDERAL COURT FROM: Lucia A. Doughert REFERENCES: USDC CASE No. 86-1810-Civ-DAVIB City Attorney SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY ENCLOSURES. This case involves the shooting of the Plaintiff, LAZARO PADRON, '-� by police officers FREDDY D'AGOSTINO and ANTONIO BUSTILLO, which occurred on July 7, 1985. The police officers, were riding in _# separate vehicles and were dispatched to 138 Northeast 56th Street, Miami, Florida with reference to a man causing a =1 disturbance. Upon their arrival, they approached the Plaintiff who was reportedly holding a machete in a threatening manner. The officers began to speak with the Plaintiff and ordered him at various times to drop the machete. While talking with him, the Plaintiff was backpeddling (walking backwards) as the officers { -S ., walked forward. The actual shooting took place at a position approximately 100 yards from where the police officers initially -i encountered the Plaintiff. According to the police officersstatements, which were taken sometime after the incident, the Plaintiff, Mr. Padron, at the instant of the shooting made a threatening motion by lunging at the police officers with the machete. Padron was hit by two bullets fired by D'Agostino and one bullet fired by Bustillo. He suffered injuries to his left ieg at a position of approximately three inches below the knee and the other shots hit him in each of his hips. It should be mentioned that witnesses to the incident give varying accounts regarding the threatening motions which the Plaintiff, Padron made as the police officers and Padron walked and just before he was shot. Also, the officers reported the shooting by stating, "male down and request sergeant and unit to respond to scene". Thereafter, they refused to discuss the incident or give any further details until such time as they had had an opportunity to confer with counsel. Also, the officers did not give any first aid assistance to Mr. Padron at the scene and a period of minutes passed before rescue was called to and arrived at the scene. This particular matter is legally of great concern because this type of conduct has been held in prior cases to have due process ramifications. The Plaintiff, Padron, was charged with two counts of aggravated assault and 2 counts of resisting arrest without violence, to which he pled no contest and received 2 years probation. 3 �71;0 Page 2 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission September 12, 1986 LAZARO PADRON V. CITY USDC Case No.86--1810 Notwithstanding the foregoing matters concerning the resolution of the criminal charges against Mr. Padron, the Complaint filed in this case (originally filed in Circuit Court and now removed to Federal Court) charges that the officers acted without probable cause and moreover, that the officers acted by utilizing excessive force in shooting Padron under these circumstances. Additionally, the Complaint charges the officers with various other procedural and technical deficiencies which allegedly resulted in the shooting of Padron and it charges the Chief of Police and the City with maintaining policies and customs in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, which were the "moving force" of the shooting of Mr. Padron. These customs and policies include the hiring and retention of police officers in spite of insufficient qualifications and demonstrated abilities, disre- garding screening factors and techniques which would allow the City to identify and not hire or retain officers who were insufficiently qualified and/or who had demonstrated discernable propensities for conduct which would deprive individuals of their constitutional rights. The Complaint also alleges negligence on the part of the City and the Police Chief, as well as the individual officers. As a result of this incident, Mr. Padron was hospitalized at Jackson Memorial Hospital from July 8, 1985 through July 16, 1985, where he incurred charges of $10,600.27 for treatment. Additionally, since his release from the hospital, Padron has incurred additional expenses for rehabilitation since his wounds have allegedly caused him a permanent injury and aggravation of a pre-existing condition. The law department in analyzing the case has anticipated that the following problems will arise in defending this case: 1. Did the officers have probable cause to shoot Mr. Padron under the circumstances presented on July 7, 1985. 2. The officers' response after the shooting concerning their failure to render aid. 3. The internal records and administrative charges made against these particular officers prior to this incident regarding other matters. t Page 3 September 12, 1986 Honorable Mayor and Members LAZARO PADRON V. CITY of the City Commission USDC Case No.86--1810 4. The fact that officer Bustillo has resigned from the Department and to date has not been cooperative in defending the claim due to the fact that the Law Department has not been able to contact him. He will most probably request separate counsel. 5. The conflict of interest that exists concerning this office's representing the individual police officers in this case. In this regard it should be pointed out that Officer D'Agostino was charged administratively with failing to cooperate in the investigation for which he received a penalty of 80 hours earned time, which matter he is presently appealing before the Civil Service Board. This conflict would result in the officers having to obtain their own attorneys, and the City would most probably be responsible for their attorney's fees. (Attorney Robert D. Klausner has already filed a Notice of Appearance on behalf of D'Agostino). The Plaintiff is represented in this law suit by the firm of Major's & Logan, P.A. which has offered to settle the case for the sum of $30,000. The Law Department has investigated this claim and it along with the Department of Risk Management recommends that the case be settled for the sum demanded. T.MP/e+m/nh/659 -