National Roundup

Nevada
Las Vegas police paying $525K to man shot while running away
LAS VEGAS (AP) — A man who dropped a gun and ran naked from police before being shot by an officer outside a church in 2017 has accepted a $525,000 settlement to end a federal lawsuit against the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and police officers, both sides said Monday.

Jason Funke’s lawyer, Joshua Newville of Minneapolis, confirmed a Las Vegas Review-Journal report about the Nov. 3 agreement and U.S. District Judge Richard Boulware II’s finding in June that Officer Mark Hatten “unlawfully used excessive force against Funke” when he shot the then-25-year-old in August 2017.

Attorney Craig Anderson, representing the department, also confirmed the settlement in the case alleging violations of Funke’s constitutional rights, the Americans with Disabilities Act and unlawful assault and battery. Anderson and police Officer Larry Hadfield, a department spokesman, declined additional comment.

Newville noted Hatten was at the center of a $500,000 settlement the police department reached in 2018 with the mother of a 44-year-old man who died in December 2010 after Hatten shocked him with an electronic stun gun 10 times for more than 90 seconds during a struggle after a traffic stop.

The day Funke was shot, police were summoned to a church where Funk had sought counseling just days earlier about his mental health, including feelings of suicide, according to court records.

A church leader told a 911 dispatcher that Funke was “sitting naked in a meditation pose with a handgun in front of him” and money on the ground in front of the church.

“He told the dispatcher, ‘Yeah, this man is suicidal. I talked to him; he’s not making sense,’” Boulware noted in his June ruling granting summary judgment on Funke’s excessive force claim against Hatten.

At least six police officers arrived, with a police helicopter overhead, before Funke stood, picked up the gun and began pacing.

Hatten, armed with a rifle in a position near other officers, announced: “He’s starting to move. ... I’m gonna take a shot.”

“It is undisputed that Funke had not directly or verbally threatened anyone with the gun, and that he committed no serious crime,” Boulware wrote. “He had not raised the weapon toward others or himself.”

Another officer yelled at Funke to drop the gun and he did, putting his hands in the air, and walking toward Hatten and another officer, the judge said.

A K-9 officer struggled to control a police dog, which was barking and pulling at its leash when officers ordered Funke to lay on the ground.

Funke ran, the police dog was released and “attacked another officer,” and Hatten shot Funke in the back left shoulder when Funke was about 30 feet (9 meters) from the dropped gun. The police dog then reached Funke and bit his arm.

“The parties dispute whether Funke was running to retrieve the gun or simply running away,” Boulware wrote.

Hatten is still employed by the Las Vegas police department, assigned to the criminalistics bureau, which includes crime scene investigations, the Review-Journal reported.

Officer Aden OcampoGomez, a department spokesman, declined to tell the newspaper if Hatten was disciplined for shooting Funke and declined to comment on the settlement.

Funke was initially charged with misdemeanor indecent exposure and possession of a dangerous weapon on a school or child-care property, court records show.

He later pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of carrying a concealed weapon and was sentenced to probation.

“Essentially, he said, ‘I’m being punished for having a mental breakdown,’” his mother said.

Indiana
Court expands who can get emotional distress damages
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — A ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court has expanded the limited number of people who are eligible to recover damages in lawsuits alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Indiana lawsuits seeking damages for emotional distress typically can only be pursued by a person who suffers a direct physical injury, suffers an injury that also injures or kills a third-party, or witnesses a relative’s death or severe injury immediately after it occurs.

But in a 3-2 decision released Dec. 22, Indiana’s high court said it is also now allowing a parent or guardian to seek damages from a child caretaker when the parent or guardian discovers, with irrefutable certainty, that the caretaker sexually abused their child and that abuse severely impacted the parent or guardian’s emotional health, The (Northwest Indiana) Times reported.

The new rule arose from a case involving the sexual assault of a profoundly disabled child in 2015 and 2016 by an instructional assistant responsible for her care at a school in the Metropolitan School District of Pike Township in Indianapolis.

According to court records, the perpetrator confessed to her actions two years later, then pleaded guilty to child molesting and received a 13-year sentence.

In 2019, the child’s mother sued the woman, the school, and the school district claiming she suffered emotional distress because of the child’s sexual assault. She alleged her distress ultimately compromised her ability to care for her daughter at home and forced her to incur expenses for the child’s placement in a chronic care facility.

Court records show the mother’s lawsuit was turned aside by lower courts because her claims didn’t fit any of the categories for which damages for emotional distress can be pursued, chiefly because she did not witness the abuse and only learned of it years later.

But in the ruling, Supreme Court Justice Christopher Goff concluded that an expansion was necessary because “the extraordinary circumstances here warrant a proper remedy.”

“Justice compels us to fashion a rule permitting a claim for damages limited to circumstances like those presented here,” he wrote in an opinion joined by Chief Justice Loretta Rush and Justice Steven David.

Goff said the specific facts of the Marion County case perfectly align with the court’s new rule and ordered that the mother be permitted to proceed to trial against the defendants in her emotional distress claim.

Justice Geoffrey Slaughter dissented from the court’s ruling in an opinion joined by Justice Mark Massa. Slaughter suggested that any expansion of emotional distress liability is a task best left to the Legislature rather than the courts.

He wrote that the court’s decision almost certainly opens the door to a significant number of additional emotional distress claims being filed in Indiana’s courts.

“Only time will tell whether today’s watershed rule is so narrow and fact-specific that it proves to be a one-way ticket for this ride only — or whether, as I suspect, it is the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent, with the rest of the camel soon to follow,” he wrote.