Projo 7 to 7 News BlogTaking the news pulse of Rhode Island and Southeastern Massachusetts, by Providence Journal and projo.com staff, from 7 to 7, every business day |
|
Get the 7 to 7 on your mobile at www.projo.com. Twitter: projo | RSS | Email alerts
« Mass. ambulance accident sends 3 to hospitals |
Main
| R.I. best at vaccinating elderly for the flu »
By Katie Mulvaney A federal appeals panel today upheld a lower court's dismissal of a suit accusing state police of violating the civil rights of seven Narragansett Indians arrested during the 2003 raid on a tribal smoke shop. Three 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges found that the suit lacked necessary detail about the claims brought against the state troopers. In their appeal, the Narragansetts had accused police of arresting them without probable cause. "Our precedent is clear," the court wrote, "that courts 'must always exhibit awareness of the defendant's inalienable right to know in advance the nature of the cause of action being asserted against him'." The court also rejected the Narragansetts' assertion that the U.S. District Court had erred in refusing their motion to amend the suit because they needed more time to unearth further information to support the allegations that the state police used excessive force. The seven Narragansetts sued the state police on July 13, 2006, alleging they had violated their Constitutional rights when they executed a search warrant to stop the tribe from selling tax-free cigarettes at a roadside shop on tribal land in Charlestown three years earlier. The raid erupted into a confrontation in which those Narragansetts were arrested. Yesterday's ruling upholds U.S. District Court Judge William E. Smith dismissal of that suit. In his decision, Smith characterized the civil suit as a "placeholder of sorts" if the U.S. Supreme Court reversed an appeals court finding that the state police had authority to enforce Rhode Island laws on the tribe's land. Smith called the complaint "legally insufficient and on its face plainly fails to state a claim." The Supreme Court did not reverse the appeals court ruling. |
|
|
|
Leave a comment
Please be civil. Vicious comments, personal attacks and profanity won't be published. Name and email are required; email address will not publish.