Did Albuquerque police go too far when they ordered a police dog named Bart to attack Army veteran Jimmy Castillo and then shocked him with a Taser gun during a four-hour SWAT standoff in April 2000?
Or were the officers' actions justified, given that they unsuccessfully tried to coax Castillo who had been drinking, argued with his wife, fired a rifle and threatened to kill himself into surrendering?
Those are the questions before federal jurors in a trial of two officers accused of using excessive force against Castillo, 53. Testimony began Monday and could last through Friday. Castillo seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
"The officers saved Mr. Castillo from himself, and as a reward, he has sued" them, said lawyer Luis Robles, who's with French & Associates and is defending the case along with Assistant City Attorney Kathryn Levy.
Castillo's lawyer, Sam Bregman, argued that Bart's then-handler, officer Andrew Lehocky, let the dog loose on Castillo for no good reason, and that now-retired officer Michael Schaller then shocked Castillo with 50,000 volts of electricity from a Taser gun as Castillo fought with the dog.
Bregman said his client suffers from a terminal illness and is manic depressive, and that the officers' actions were in no way meant to protect and serve, as the police department's motto says.
"Instead, they viciously and without justification, violently abused Jimmy Castillo," Bregman said. "To protect and serve? Not even close."
The case is the first of six so-called police dog bite cases to get to the trial stage. Bregman filed three of the suits.
None has settled, as Mayor Martin Chavez has ordered all police misconduct cases to be taken to trial.
In Castillo's case, the city contends Bart's "deployment" was ordered on Lehocky by a SWAT supervisor after Castillo exited his home in the 500 block of Shirley NE at least twice to talk with officers, but would not put down a .357 Magnum he carried or surrender. Police said that after Castillo came out a third time, the dog was ordered to stop him from re-entering his home.
Before the dog went after him, Castillo had shown the officers he had no weapons in his hands or in his front waistband. But Robles told the jury the officers were not sure Castillo was unarmed because they could not see behind him to examine whether he had anything tucked in his clothing.
The city also said the use of the Taser gun was justified because officers could not see Castillo's hands while he fought with the dog, and they could not be sure that he was unarmed. They later found he was unarmed.
The city started putting on its case late Tuesday afternoon after U.S. Magistrate Lorenzo F. Garcia denied a motion by the city to dismiss the case.
Garcia noted that Bregman put on the stand George Kirkham, an expert in police procedure and standards, who testified that everything officers did was justified except the use of the dog and Taser gun.
"I saw nothing in the record that would warrant the use of a dog in any way, shape or form," Kirkham testified Tuesday. "And then when someone is struggling with a dog, to shoot them with an air Taser on top of that ... I've never heard of anyone doing anything like it."
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. NoNonsense English offers this material non-commercially for research and educational purposes. I believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, i.e. the media service or newspaper which first published the article online and which is indicated at the top of the article unless otherwise specified.