Archive: News

A case against the Tompkins County Sheriff's Department for 'excessive and overwhelming force' and negligence in coordinating other law enforcement agencies has been dismissed. A motion for summary judgement submitted by attorneys for the Sheriff's Department was granted by New York State 6th Judicial District Supreme Court justice Molly Reynolds Fitzgerald on September 12th.

"The plaintiffs in this case certainly had their property destroyed or taken by the defendants," Fitzgerald wrote in her court decision. "They were the owners and landlords of the property. Their tenant engaged in threatening acts which caused the defendants through proper use of their police powers to seize the property, and as such no compensation must be paid, Northen Pac. Ry. Co v State of Minnesota, 208 US 583 (1908). Defendants motion for summary judgement is granted and the complaint is dismissed."

The lawsuit was filed by Robert Bartholf and Joseph Petricola against the Sheriff's Office and Tompkins County in reference to an incident on December 30, 2015 at 127 Hornbrook Road in Danby, which resulted in a four day armed standoff between law enforcement and David Cady after the Sheriff's Office attempted to execute a bench warrant on Cady, who had missed a court date for a felony arrest. Finally a Pennsylvania State Police armored critical incident vehicle known as a ROOK breached the house, where law enforcement officers found Cady's body.

During the incident Sheriff Ken Lansing was criticized for not being on the scene until the second day of the incident. Lansing blamed former Undersheriff Derek Osbourne responsible for not immediately contacting him, But Osbourne said he had repeatedly tried to inform Lansing. This caused a rift between the two that resulted in Osbourne leaving the department. Osbourne is challenging Lansing in November's Sheriff election, recently defeating Lansing in the Democratic primary election 6090 to 3893.

Bartholf and Petricol own the Hornbrook Road property and were seeking damages on the grounds that they claimed that use of the armored critical incident vehicle constituted an unreasonable search 'primarily motivated by intent to arrest', and that the damage to the property amounted to an 'unconstitutional taking' of their property.

The decision came after the US Department of Justice and Community Oriented Policing Services of the US Department of Justice analyzed the incident and found that the Sheriff's Department's actions during the incident were justified.

In a media release Tuesday, Sherfiff's Department officials said, "Although a decision has been reached regarding this case, the Sheriff's Office continues to be saddened by the loss of life and destruction of property that occurred during this incident."

v14i37