Case Closed CIVIL CASES AGAINST LAW ENFORCEMENT - Devyn Little - Settled

Not open for further replies.


Apr 12, 2023
Username: NiaLiviaus

Select the type of case you wish to file with the court:

Skai Slade [botskai]

S-221 Alexandr Nolan
LT-129 Quintin Johnson

I. Statement of Claim
On the November 3rd, 2023, Mr. Slade was present at Spanish Avenue when the defendants were dispatched in response to a 32 call. Upon arrival, Mr. Slade was found lying on the ground alongside another individual. It is important to note that Mr. Slade was not armed, nor was he brandishing any weapon at the time.

However, the other individual on the ground was observed to be in possession of a firearm, which could have prompted the 32 call.

In accordance with the precedent established in Terry v. Ohio, an officer may conduct a "stop and frisk" on a suspect when they possess reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed, is committing, or may be about to commit a crime, and when the suspect is deemed armed and dangerous.

We contend that Mr. Slade's Fourth Amendment rights were egregiously violated during this incident. It is uncertain if he was subjected to an unwarranted GSR (Gunshot Residue) test but Mr. Slade was subjected to a frisk without any reasonable suspicion to believe that he was armed and dangerous. It is crucial to highlight that the police officers were fully aware of the presence of a firearm on the other individual, and their inaction in addressing that threat should have eliminated any reasonable suspicion regarding Mr. Slade.

Again, we contend that the presence of a weapon in plain sight on the other person at the scene, coupled with the knowledge and awareness of the police officers, should have nullified any reasonable suspicion that Mr. Slade posed a threat to the officers or others at the location.

Mr. Slade was subjected to an illegal search and seizure, violating his Fourth Amendment rights. The actions of Police Officers S-221 Alexandr Nolan and LT-129 Quintin Johnson were not based on specific and articulable facts, as required by Terry v. Ohio, but rather appeared to be a baseless and unwarranted intrusion into Mr. Slade's privacy.

II. Relief
We are seeking appropriate legal remedies and damages for the violation of Mr. Slade's constitutional rights.

$10,000 Attorney Fees
$10,000 for pain and suffering

We are also requesting that the officers involved be re-educated in case law to prevent this from happening again.

III. Representative
Nia Liviaus [selliee]

IV. Evidence

V. Witnesses
We hold the right to add any witnesses up until the end of discovery.
This is not a "class-action lawsuit" so another civil case can be filed for an additional Plaintiff.

The state is good to proceed with discovery & scheduling.

We also would like to schedule a Criminal Action case directly after the lawsuit, pending the outcome of the lawsuit.
The court will advise the DA's office to leave concerns of how things are added to the docket to the court's discretion. If you have a concern, regarding the additional plaintiff and an argument for an additional case to be filed, you can raise that issue and request that I review it rather than ruling on it yourself.

However, given the apparent concern, I will ask the Plaintiff's counsel @NiaLiviaus to put together a more formal motion requesting the addition of a secondary Plaintiff. Given that the DA's office has made their case prematurely, I will make an immediate ruling once I review without an opportunity for rebuttal from the Defense.

In the meantime, we will treat Mr. Wiggam as though he is currently a Plaintiff on this case, and any attempts to question him, intimidate him, etc. regarding this case will result in contempt charges for all involved.

Thank you
Nothing about my response was formal just letting her know to file a new case instead of adding on to this one, but sounds good will be the last time I try to help a defense attorney like I have many times in the past.
I want to thank the court for a quick response time. As requested we are submitting a motion on behalf of the plaintiffs requesting the addition of Paul Wiggam, per Permissive Joinder, since this is in fact not a class-action law suit since, there is no bigger party that we are representing here.

Thank you for your time.

The Court would like to thank the DA's office for attempting to help organize cases on the docket, and the Plaintiff for articulating their argument clearly in this motion.

Given that the two Plaintiffs were present at the same incident on the same date/time with the same officers and are arguing similar complaints against unlawful search/seizure, the Court will allow both Plaintiffs to join their complaints under one case. I feel there is sufficient overlap in their cases and having them join their cases will allow the Court to hear their cases more efficiently and keep me from having to hear the same facts/testimonies multiple times.

I appreciate the arguments made on both sides, and will now open up the Discovery period for this trial. I'd like to schedule this quickly as the holidays are coming up, so I'd like both the Plaintiff and the Defense to provide their best availabilities as soon as possible in an effort to get this on the calendar.

Thank you!
With the addition of a secondary Plaintiff, the relief we are seeking will increase accordingly:

We will be requesting for Paul Wiggam

$10,000 for Attorney Fees
$10,000 for Pain and Suffering

Thank you
My availability is Tomorrow (which is too soon) or most likely after the holidays.

That's the problem with having a one man show here.
I'll retract my last motion and also recuse myself from the case. Another lawyer can represent the defendants.
The court has been notified that this matter has been settled. The settlement agreement appears to be $150,000 total in monetary damages for the Defendants and a letter of recommendation to IA regarding the situation.

If either party has an update to this agreement, please post it here. Otherwise, I'll be closing the case accordingly.
Not open for further replies.