Chesapeake Police
yes sir

United States

#48 Jan 18, 2012
BOOM!
LOL

Winchester, VA

#49 Jan 18, 2012
Wow Scott Taylor just won't let it go will he.
layla

United States

#50 Jan 18, 2012
holycrap wrote:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WENDELL L. CRUSE, Case No. l:I0-CV-587 Plaintiff,
Vs.
DENNIS GIBSON, et aI., AMENDED COMPLAINT (Civil Rule 15(a»
1.This is a civil action authorized by 42 U.S.C Section 1983 to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of the rights secured by the Constitution of the United States. The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C Section 1331 and 1343 (a)(3). Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C Section 2201 and 2202.
4.Defendant, Dennis Gibson, was, at the times mentioned in this complaint, a lieutenant on the Chesapeake Ohio police department.
5.Defendant, Russell Bennett, was, at the times mentioned in this complaint the Chiefof Police for the Chesapeake Oqio police department.
6.Each defendant is being sued individually and in his official capacity. At all times mentioned in this complaint each defendant acted maliciously, with evil intent, and with deliberate indifference to the United States Constitution, and under color of state law.
III. FACTS
7.On or around August 28, 2008, Chesapeake, Ohio police officer, defendant Dennis Gibson and Chief of Police Russell Bennett, arrived at plaintiffs former residence located at 322 East Eighth Avenue in Chesapeake, Ohio, pursuant to an alleged domestic violence call.
8.Plaintiff informed both officers that no domestic violence incident had occurred.
9 Both officers requested permission to search plaintiffs residence. Plaintiff refused. Defendant Dennis Gibson called plaintiffs former landlord and requested that he come to plaintiffs residence and unlock the door so that defendant Gibson could conduct a search. Plaintiffs landlord refused. Defendant Gibson called Judge Donald Capper and requested a warrant to enter plaintiffs residence and was denied.
10.Defendant Gibson also called plaintiffs parole officer and requested that he come to plaintiffs residence and conduct a search. This request was also refused.
11.Defendant Gibson and Defendant Bennett broke into plaintiffs residence without a warrant or probable cause and conducted an illegal search in violation of plaintiffs Fourth Amendment Right.
12.Defendant Gibson stated to the plaintiff that he did not want "his kind" living in Chesapeake and he was going to do anything he could to get the plaintiff out of Chesapeake, Ohio.
13.Upon information and belief, the statement made by defendant Gibson in paragraph 12, referred to plaintiffs race as an African American and was a violation of plaintiffs right to Equal Protection under the law.
14.Defendant Gibson knowingly filed an affidavit containing perjured testimony stating that he found evidence ofcriminal activity in plaintiffs residence.
15.The actions of defendant's Gibson and Bennett described in paragraphs 7 through 14 were done with malice and evil intent.
16.The actions ofall defendants were extreme and outrageous and caused the plaintiff severe emotional distress and mental anguish, and loss ofemployment.
17.Plaintiff incorporates by reference all statements contained in the original complaint as iffully restated herein.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that this court enter judgment granting plaintiff:
18.A declaration that the act described herein violated plaintiff's rights under the Constitution and laws ofthe United States
19.Com pensatory damages in the amount of $100,000.00 against each defendant, jointly and severally.
20.Punitive damages in the amount $200,000.00 against each defendant.
21.A jury trial on all issues triable by jury.
22.Plaintiff's cost in this suit.
23.
Any additional relief this court deems just, proper, and equitable.
Dated: September 23. 2010 Respectfully submitted,
Wendell L. Cruse
Hey Scott: this has been settled, enough with old business, any new business, oh sorry I forgot you are no long a councilmen.
lawyer

Boynton Beach, FL

#51 Jan 18, 2012
holycrap wrote:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WENDELL L. CRUSE, Case No. l:I0-CV-587 Plaintiff,
Vs.
DENNIS GIBSON, et aI., AMENDED COMPLAINT (Civil Rule 15(a»
1.This is a civil action authorized by 42 U.S.C Section 1983 to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of the rights secured by the Constitution of the United States. The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C Section 1331 and 1343 (a)(3). Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C Section 2201 and 2202.
4.Defendant, Dennis Gibson, was, at the times mentioned in this complaint, a lieutenant on the Chesapeake Ohio police department.
5.Defendant, Russell Bennett, was, at the times mentioned in this complaint the Chiefof Police for the Chesapeake Oqio police department.
6.Each defendant is being sued individually and in his official capacity. At all times mentioned in this complaint each defendant acted maliciously, with evil intent, and with deliberate indifference to the United States Constitution, and under color of state law.
III. FACTS
7.On or around August 28, 2008, Chesapeake, Ohio police officer, defendant Dennis Gibson and Chief of Police Russell Bennett, arrived at plaintiffs former residence located at 322 East Eighth Avenue in Chesapeake, Ohio, pursuant to an alleged domestic violence call.
8.Plaintiff informed both officers that no domestic violence incident had occurred.
9 Both officers requested permission to search plaintiffs residence. Plaintiff refused. Defendant Dennis Gibson called plaintiffs former landlord and requested that he come to plaintiffs residence and unlock the door so that defendant Gibson could conduct a search. Plaintiffs landlord refused. Defendant Gibson called Judge Donald Capper and requested a warrant to enter plaintiffs residence and was denied.
10.Defendant Gibson also called plaintiffs parole officer and requested that he come to plaintiffs residence and conduct a search. This request was also refused.
11.Defendant Gibson and Defendant Bennett broke into plaintiffs residence without a warrant or probable cause and conducted an illegal search in violation of plaintiffs Fourth Amendment Right.
12.Defendant Gibson stated to the plaintiff that he did not want "his kind" living in Chesapeake and he was going to do anything he could to get the plaintiff out of Chesapeake, Ohio.
13.Upon information and belief, the statement made by defendant Gibson in paragraph 12, referred to plaintiffs race as an African American and was a violation of plaintiffs right to Equal Protection under the law.
14.Defendant Gibson knowingly filed an affidavit containing perjured testimony stating that he found evidence ofcriminal activity in plaintiffs residence.
15.The actions of defendant's Gibson and Bennett described in paragraphs 7 through 14 were done with malice and evil intent.
16.The actions ofall defendants were extreme and outrageous and caused the plaintiff severe emotional distress and mental anguish, and loss ofemployment.
17.Plaintiff incorporates by reference all statements contained in the original complaint as iffully restated herein.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that this court enter judgment granting plaintiff:
18.A declaration that the act described herein violated plaintiff's rights under the Constitution and laws ofthe United States
19.Com pensatory damages in the amount of $100,000.00 against each defendant, jointly and severally.
20.Punitive damages in the amount $200,000.00 against each defendant.
21.A jury trial on all issues triable by jury.
22.Plaintiff's cost in this suit.
23.
Any additional relief this court deems just, proper, and equitable.
Dated: September 23. 2010 Respectfully submitted,
Wendell L. Cruse
Funny that is all being said because 1 Chesapeake has never had a Lt. And there is no 8th ave in Chesapeake, lol
lawyer

Boynton Beach, FL

#52 Jan 18, 2012
That being said this Suit would have been dismissed!
Nope

Huntington, WV

#53 Jan 20, 2012
btw, the suit has not been dismissed.......
Nope

Huntington, WV

#54 Jan 20, 2012
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WENDELL L. CRUSE, Plaintiff,
vs._DENNIS GIBSQN
Now comes the Plaintiff, Wendell L. Cruse, in pro se and respectfully requests that Defendant Bennett's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for a Protective Order be denied. The reasons for this request are contained in the following Memorandum in Support.
This Court issued an order directing service and instructing Plaintiff to issue a new Marshall Form. Plaintiff immediately contacted the Clerk's office to inquire about the Marshall Form that had already been submitted and was instructed by a female clerk to; 'Just submit another form." Plaintiff immediately mailed another form to the Clerk's office. Approximately 90 days later, Plaintiff again contacted the Clerk's office to inquire about service to Defendant Bennett. Plaintiff was informed by a female clerk of court that service had not yet been completed but that " it would be taken care of today". Service to Defendant Bennett was not completed until October 29, 2011. Plaintiff was never negligent in perfecting service despite Defendant Bennett's misconstruing this Court's orders.
As stated earlier, Service of Process was sent to the Chesapeake Ohio Police Department by the U.S. Marshall's Service. Service was returned as to Defendant Gibson-who is now chief of the Chesapeake Police department-on December 22, 2010. Apparently, the summons for Defendant Bennett was held by the Chesapeake Police Department or the U.S. Postal Service until on or around March 11, 2011, when it was returned to the U.S. Marshall's Service as unexecuted. Upon notification that service to Defendant Bennett had been returned as unexecuted, Plaintiff filed a motion to again order service as to Defendant BennettA. INTRODUCTION
Defendant Bennett has requested that this Court dismiss the Plaintiff s action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ P., Rules 4, 12(b),(2),(4), and (5); alleging insufficiency ofprocess and insufficiency ofservice ofprocess and further claiming that this Court lacks jurisdiction. Defendant Bennett alleges that this action was initiated on August 27,2010, and that the summons was not returned as executedWltil October 29, 2011. Defendant BeDnett claims that pursuanUo.Rule 4(m.},..service must be completed within 120 days.
B. ARGUMENT
1. Procedural History
Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on August 27, 201O(Doc 1). On September 29,2010, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.(Doc 6). On October 30,2010, this Court entered an order that the United States Marshall was to serve a copy of the Complaint.(Doc.7) The summons to Defendant Gibson was returned as executed on December 22, 2010.(Doc. 14), no such return ofexecution was filed as to Defendant Bennett.
Plaintiff sent the original Service of Process to 211 Third Avenue, Chesapeake Ohio 45619, which is the address of the Chesapeake Police Department where Defendant Bennett was Chief of Police. The summons for this Defendant was not returned as unexecuted until March 9,2011, and Plaintiff was not notified that service was not completed until around March 11, 2011. Plaintiff filed a new request for service to this Defendant and provided a different address on March 24, 2011.(Doc. 11). Plaintiff attached a new Marshall Form with a different address along with the Motion requesting that this Court issue a new order for service. Plaintiff maintains that this Court's order of May 11, 2011 effectively extended the time for service for an appropriate period as required by Rule 4(m). Furthermore, the proper remedy would be to extend the discovery period as to this defendant not dismissal ofthis action because the Federal court favor resolution of cases on the merits. Therefore, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss should be denied and this Court should issue an order for Defendant to answer the First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Admissions as required by rule.
Nope

Huntington, WV

#55 Jan 20, 2012
By the way that was filed today.....
LOL

Winchester, VA

#56 Jan 20, 2012
Nope wrote:
By the way that was filed today.....
Filed today but you posted it 2 days ago!!
Nope

Huntington, WV

#57 Jan 20, 2012
Read it Dumba$$........
LOL

Winchester, VA

#58 Jan 20, 2012
Nope wrote:
Read it Dumba$$........
Just because a court document reads one way, doesn't make it true
LOL

Winchester, VA

#59 Jan 20, 2012
LOL wrote:
<quoted text>Just because a court document reads one way, doesn't make it true
I mean seriously Scott I bet we could pull up some of your court papers too
Nope

Huntington, WV

#60 Jan 20, 2012
This one was.........:

TASERED CYCLIST SETTLES LAWSUIT
On August 19, 2008, bicyclist Anthony Patrick, from Huntington, West Virginia, was Tasered by Lawrence County, Ohio Deputy Charles Hammonds and Chesapeake Police Department Dennis Gibson. Patrick was riding his bicycle with another rider when Deputy Hammonds told Patrick to get off the road. Patrick told Hammonds he had as much right to be on the road as the deputy. A series of events unfolded thereafter which ended with Patrick be Tasered, arrested and charged with a series of “crimes” including “Riding a Bicycle on the Roadway,” resisting arrest, failing to obey a lawful order and other crimes.

Patrick retained a criminal lawyer and fought the criminal charges, filing a Motion to Dismiss. After a hearing at which Deputy Hammonds was the only witness, the court issued a written opinion holding that the Deputy’s order to stop was “unlawful” as Patrick had done nothing wrong. The court pointed out that cyclists have the right to use the roads and are permitted by law to ride side by side. While the court stated that cyclists should act courteously towards other traffic, cyclists riding two abreast do not legally have to move to a single file line or otherwise give way to motorized traffic and it was improper for Deputy Hammonds to order Patrick off the road. The Court also reaffirmed the landmark holding of Trotwood v. Selz, finding that a bicycle being operated at a reasonable speed for a bicycle is not “impeding traffic.” After the Court’s ruling in Patrick’s favor, the Prosecuting Attorney dismissed all charges against Patrick.

Steve Magas, The Bike Lawyer, represented Tony Patrick in a civil rights lawsuit filed against Deputy Hammonds, Officer Gibson, the Sheriff, the Police Chief and the City of Chesapeake in the United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Western Division. This case, Patrick v. Lawless, et al., included claims of excessive force, negligence, assault and battery, false arrest and false imprisonment, seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Defendants denied liability and discovery proceeded, including the taking of several key depositions, and it was learned that key evidence – including a videotape from the scene of the Tasering - had never been provided to Patrick’s criminal or civil lawyers.

All parties reported to the United States Federal District Courthouse in Cincinnati for a Settlement Conference with Judge Barrett on July 1, 2010. Following several hours of negotiations, a settlement was reached. While the settlement figure is confidential, Tony Patrick was very pleased with the outcome and feels justice was done.
NoCrap

Huntington, WV

#61 Jan 20, 2012
Yeah, just read the Ironton tribune Scott............
resident

United States

#62 Jan 20, 2012
Dear Scott--- since you speak law enforcement, give this to me in lil people vocabulary.
LOL

Winchester, VA

#63 Jan 20, 2012
Aren't there court complaints that say he beat up his wife and gad some hookers and drugs in the house. Must be true if it's wrote up all fancy with lawyer words and all!!!
This sounds really stupid

Huntington, WV

#64 Jan 20, 2012
Actually, here it is:

CHESAPEAKE — A Chesapeake Village Councilman is facing a second round of charges following a complaint made by his wife of 17 years.

William Scott Taylor, 43, was arrested around 6:30 p.m. May 30, at his home on Second Avenue after his wife, Julie, contacted the village police alleging her husband had held her down against her will.

The alleged incident happened around 6 p.m. when Julie Taylor, 36, arrived home to find two adult women “fleeing from my house,” Taylor states in her handwritten affidavit filed with the village police report.

“After questioning my husband, he first said no one was in the house, then that they had entered my home on their own,” according to the affidavit.“He then physically restrained me and I was yelling for the assistance of my son, who was outside on the porch. After a couple of minutes he released me and I went outside and called the police to come.”

Sgt. Julian Coleman and Assistant Police Chief Brad Layman of the village police arrived with a deputy from the Lawrence County Sheriff’s Office, Police Chief Dennis Gibson said.

Taylor was arrested without incident and taken to the county jail in Ironton. He bonded out the next day, according to jail records.

After the arrest, Julie Taylor called the village police a second time that night saying she found a marijuana cigarette on the backyard grill, Gibson said. The assistant police chief responded.

“I took pictures of the marijuana which was rolled up and placed on the grill outside the back of the house,” according to Layman’s statement.“I placed it in an evidence bag.”

Taylor now faces one count of domestic violence and a citation for possession of marijuana.

On April 17, Taylor was arrested by sheriff’s deputies after neighbors complained that he had spoken multiple obscenities to them, threatened to kick pets and made an obscene gesture. At that time, deputies reported that Taylor became belligerent, allegedly tried to tear down his porch light and began screaming.

When deputies attempted to arrest him, Taylor kicked off his prosthetic leg and he was carried to the patrol car and later to jail, according to the sheriff’s report. There he was charged with disorderly conduct, menacing, criminal trespassing and resisting arrest.

After that incident Taylor said his civil rights had been violated and that he planned to make a complaint to the Cincinnati division of the FBI.

A call was made to the cell phone of Taylor, but a voice message said it was temporarily not in service.

The village police chief said he has received complaints from some members of the community about these arrests.

“I would like for the public to know it is unfortunate that this happened,” Gibson said.“But I was appointed as chief of police to uphold the law in Chesapeake, regardless of whether it is a citizen or an elected official.”

Taylor faces a pretrial on all charges on June 10 in Lawrence County Municipal Court and a trial on the charges stemming from the April 17 incident on June 24.
ooppps

Winchester, VA

#65 Jan 20, 2012
18 Concerning: Taylor, William S
D.B.A./A.K.A.:
Filed: 04/18/2011
Arr. Agency: SHF Case #: 1100335A
Docket Entry: Click
Charge: ASSAULT
Case Type: Criminal
19 Concerning: Taylor, William S
D.B.A./A.K.A.:
Filed: 04/18/2011
Arr. Agency: SHF Case #: 1100335B
Docket Entry: Click
Charge: ASSAULT
Case Type: Criminal
20 Concerning: Taylor, William S
D.B.A./A.K.A.:
Filed: 04/18/2011
Arr. Agency: SHF Case #: 1100337A
Docket Entry: Click
Charge: AGG MENACING
Case Type: Criminal
21 Concerning: Taylor, William S
D.B.A./A.K.A.:
Filed: 04/18/2011
Arr. Agency: SHF Case #: 1100337B
Docket Entry: Click
Charge: RESISTING ARRES
Case Type: Criminal
22 Concerning: Taylor, William S
D.B.A./A.K.A.:
Filed: 04/18/2011
Arr. Agency: SHF Case #: 1100337C
Docket Entry: Click
Charge: TRESPASSING
Case Type: Criminal
23 Concerning: Taylor, William S
D.B.A./A.K.A.:
Filed: 04/18/2011
Arr. Agency: SHF Case #: 1100337D
Docket Entry: Click
Charge: DISORDERLY COND
Case Type: Criminal
24 Concerning: Taylor, William S
D.B.A./A.K.A.:
Filed: 05/31/2011
Arr. Agency: SHF Case #: 1100460A
Docket Entry: Click
Charge: DOM VIOLENCE
Case Type: Criminal
25 Concerning: Taylor, William S
D.B.A./A.K.A.:
Filed: 05/31/2011
Arr. Agency: SHF Case #: 1100460B
Docket Entry: Click
Charge: POSS OF MARIJU
Case Type: Criminal
crazy

Huntington, WV

#66 Jan 21, 2012
I dont think it is legal for you to go to someones house after they have been arrested and find a joint and charge them with it when clearly he was not in possesion with it but his wife was did it have his name on it or should of you charged his soon to be x wife with it....since the same thing happened to people i know i think the wife should of been arrested as well n her charged with poss of mariju.....right denis
omg

Huntington, WV

#67 Jan 21, 2012
sounds like the wife already wanted his ass gone ...damn thats messed up sorry to hear that... stay out of chesp. man....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chesapeake Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Daniel Harbolt 59 min Gin 1
fairland stadium 14 hr frankie 13
Jeremy Elliot 21 hr Gag 2
I wish you stupid mooks would learn to drive 22 hr JoFra 7
tyler kunze (Jun '10) Tue TylersWife 12
looking for a friend (Jun '15) Aug 21 Red 2
Police Cars (Jan '16) Aug 21 Gochugclorox 19

Chesapeake Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chesapeake Mortgages