THURMAN vs. CITY OF TORRINGTON
595 F.Supp. 1521, 53 USLW 2246
Facts:
Tracey Thurman repeatedly reported to the police that she and her son
were being physically and emotionally abused by her husband Charles Thurman but
the police continuously ignored her. There were instances that members of the
police actually saw the abuse happening but did not intervene. Charles Thurman
lived in Torrington and worked as a counterman and short order cook at Skie’s
Diner. There he served many members of the Torrington Police Department,
including some of the officers in this case. While at work, Charles Thurman
boasted to the officers that he intended to “get” his wife and that he intended
to kill her.
The situation escalated to the point that after being issued a
restraining order, Charles Thurman nevertheless went to Tracey’s home and demanded
to be let in. Tracey called the police and went outside to plead with Charles
not to hurt their son. Charles suddenly stabbed Tracey repeatedly in the chest,
neck, and throat. 25 minutes later, a single police officer arrived and saw
Charles still holding the bloody knife. In the presence of the police officer,
Charles kicked Tracey in the head then went inside the house and came back
holding their son whom he dropped on top of Tracey. Charles kicked Tracey in
the head a second time.
Soon, more police arrived but they permitted Charles to wander about the
crowd and continue to threaten Tracey. Finally, upon approaching Tracey once
again, this time while she was lying on a stretcher, Charles Thurman was
arrested and taken into custody.
Held:
Tracey Thurman sued the city for the violations of her rights under the
U.S. Constitution. The City brought a motion to dismiss her claims arguing that
the equal protection clause [no state shall deny any person the equal
protection of the laws] “only prohibits intentional discrimination that is
racially motivated.” The City’s argument is clearly a misstatement of the law.
The application of the equal protection clause is not limited to racial
classifications or racially motivated discrimination. Classifications on the
basis of gender will be held invalid under the equal protection clause unless
they are substantially related to strike down classifications which are not
rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.
City officials and police officers are under an affirmative duty to
preserve law and order, and to protect the personal safety of persons in the
community. This duty applies equally to women whose personal safety is
threatened by individuals with whom they have or have had a domestic relationship
as well as to all other persons whose personal safety is threatened, including
women not involved in domestic relationships. If officials have notice of the
possibility of attacks on women in domestic relationships or other persons,
they are under an affirmative duty to take reasonable measures to protect the
personal safety of such persons in the community. Failure to perform this duty
would constitute a denial of equal protection of the laws. The City’s motion to
dismiss is denied.
0
Comments
