Judge allows suit alleging another judge ordered drug testing of courtroom observers
Apr. 13, 2020
U.S. District Judge Roseann Ketchmark of Kansas City, Missouri
Judicial immunity does not completely protect a Missouri judge in a lawsuit accusing him of jailing and drug testing three courtroom observers, a federal judge has ruled.
U.S. District Judge Roseann Ketchmark of Kansas City, Missouri, ruled last week that the three people may sue for a declaratory judgment in a suit alleging unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment and violation of the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights as courtroom observers. The suit also claims that there was a 14th Amendment violation.
Bloomberg Law has coverage; a press release by the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri is here.
Douglas Gaston, Associate Circuit Judge in Texas County, Missouri
In June 2017, Arthur and Norma Rogers, with their son-in-law William Hale, were seated in Judge Gaston’s courtroom for a custody hearing regarding the Rogers’ granddaughter. Arthur Rogers, who is hard of hearing, responded to several questions from Judge Gaston with “yes, sir” and “no, sir,” seeming to irritate the judge who then required that the Rogers and Hale be taken into custody by the sheriff and tested for drugs. Norma Rogers and William Hale were detained for nearly eight hours, restrained to a metal bench. Hale, who suffers from diabetes, was restrained around the ankle and, as a result, developed an ulcer leading to a partial amputation of his foot. Arthur Rogers was detained overnight.
Ketchmark said the three plaintiffs could sue Judge Douglas Gaston for prospective declaratory relief because of a substantial likelihood of future injury but not for retroactive declaratory relief because of his judicial immunity.
The observers were in the courtroom because of a custody hearing for a minor child, “K.C.” The child’s paternal grandparents had filed a custody petition for temporary guardianship alleging that the child’s parents were unfit.
The observers were the child’s maternal grandparents, Norma and Arthur Rogers, as well as William Hale, who gave the Rogers’ a ride to court, according to Ketchmark’s opinion.
Hale has diabetes. He developed an abscess from being restrained around his ankle, leading to partial amputation of his foot, according to the suit filed in September 2019 by the ACLU of Missouri.
Gaston had appeared irritated by Arthur Rogers’ answers to his questions about whether the couple had a lawyer, according to the ACLU.
At one point, Gaston said he had sworn statements that K.C. is in immediate danger. Arthur Rogers protested, saying, “That’s just not true.”
Gaston told Arthur Rogers that he shouldn’t interrupt. “You do it again and there’s a penalty for that,” Gaston said. “It involves a cell with bars.”
After ordering drug testing, Gaston told Arthur Rogers to “just come right back” and asked him whether he had something to say.
“No, sir! I’m—nothing,” Arthur Rogers replied.
“Well, you just bought yourself 24 hours in the Texas County Jail for that look,” Gaston said. “Now anything else you wanna say or any looks you want to give?”
Norma Rogers and Hale were detained for nearly eight hours and restrained to a metal bench. Arthur Rogers was detained overnight.
The drug tests came back positive, but it was apparently because of their prescription medication, according to Ketchmark. Gaston has since recused himself from the custody case, although he is presiding in a criminal proceeding involving the child’s mother.
The suit alleges that Gaston “is prone to losing his temper,” and he has also ordered the detention and drug testing of a nonparty in an unrelated matter.
“Given the alleged policy and practices of Judge Gaston, there exists a substantial likelihood plaintiffs would be chilled of future protected activity under the First Amendment,” Ketchmark wrote. “For instance, plaintiffs may be chilled from attending hearings, a trial, or potential sentencing in the criminal matter because of Judge Gaston’s alleged policies. Therefore, plaintiffs’ claims for prospective declaratory relief are not moot, and will not be dismissed at this time.”
#IMPEACHIT@haynesboone @GeneforTexas @senatemajldr @SecElaineChao @JudicialWatch @CREWcrew @FixTheCourt @60Minutes @voxdotcom @markos @imillhiser @erikencarnacio2 @ragregg @mldauber @harrylitman @JoshFischman @mimms @keribla @RepKatiePorter @amescg @robinsreport @davidenrich @vp pic.twitter.com/s0b2vAAC8i
— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) April 1, 2020
On September 30, 2019, the ACLU of Missouri sued Texas County, Missouri associate circuit judge Douglas Gaston and several deputy sheriffs. Together, the judge and sheriffs detained, restrained, and drug tested three people without cause.
In June 2017, Norma and Arthur Rogers went to a proceeding in open court concerning their granddaughter’s custody. They were not parties to the case. They intended to observe the hearing and—if an opportunity arose—to offer to care for their granddaughter. Their son-in-law, William Hale, was there too, since he had given the child’s parents a ride.
The judge for the case was Douglas Gaston. Many in Texas County know Judge Gaston for his temper and for mixing his personal opinions with the law.
After the proceeding began, Judge Gaston noticed Mr. and Mrs. Rogers for the first time. He began questioning Mr. Rogers aggressively from the bench and took offense at his responses.
At Judge Gaston’s direction, without a warrant or probable cause, a deputy sheriff took Mr. and Mrs. Rogers, as well as Mr. Hale, into custody for drug testing. Law enforcement escorted them to the county jail, where officers forced the family to urinate and cuffed them to a bench for hours. Because of his ankle cuff, Mr. Hale, who suffers from diabetes, developed an ulcer on his foot. After this episode, a portion of his foot required amputation. It is still susceptible to frequent infection.
Mr. Rogers spent the night in jail. Judge Gaston justified it thusly: “You just bought yourself 24 hours in the Texas County Jail for that look.”
“No judge is above the law,” said Anthony Rothert, legal director for the ACLU of Missouri. “Judge Gaston, of all people, should know this.”
Judge Gaston founded the Constitution Project, a program that introduces high school students to basic principles of constitutional law.
“Detaining, drug testing, and restraining this family who had come to observe open court violated the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments,” Rothert said. “Mr. Hale should not have suffered an amputation. Mr. and Mrs. Rogers should not have been imprisoned and humiliated. Missourians deserve fair treatment, no matter who they are or where they live.”
The ACLU of Missouri Defends the First Amendment in Texas County; Judge not Immune to lawsuit alleging malicious detention
Apr. 9, 2020
Springfield, Mo. Late Tuesday, a federal judge refused a state judge’s request to toss a lawsuit brought against him by civil liberties advocates.
In June 2017, Arthur and Norma Rogers, with their son-in-law William Hale, were seated in Judge Gaston’s courtroom for a custody hearing regarding the Rogers’ granddaughter. Arthur Rogers, who is hard of hearing, responded to several questions from Judge Gaston with “yes, sir” and “no, sir,” seeming to irritate the judge who then required that the Rogers and Hale be taken into custody by the sheriff and tested for drugs. Norma Rogers and William Hale were detained for nearly eight hours, restrained to a metal bench. Hale, who suffers from diabetes, was restrained around the ankle and, as a result, developed an ulcer leading to a partial amputation of his foot. Arthur Rogers was detained overnight.
Even when Judge Gaston received pharmacy records indicating that the Rogers and Hale were on prescription medications, Judge Gaston maliciously prolonged their detention. And when Norma Rogers and William Hale were eventually released, Arthur remained unlawfully detained, depriving him of needed daily medications and the ability to care for ailing livestock on his ranch.
Judge Gaston’s behavior, in this case, represents a pattern of misconduct that impinges on constitutional freedoms.
United States District Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark, of the Western District Southern Division, ruled that “Given the alleged policy and practices of Judge Gaston, there exists a substantial likelihood Plaintiffs would be chilled of future protected activity under the First Amendment. For instance, Plaintiffs may be chilled from attending hearings, a trial, or potential sentencing in the criminal matter because of Judge Gaston’s alleged policies. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ claims for prospective declaratory relief are not moot, and will not be dismissed at this time.”
Tony Rothert, Legal Director for the ACLU of Missouri, praised the ruling. “Simply attending court as a spectator should not result in someone being arrested, subjected to baseless drug testing, and – in this case – losing part of his foot.”
Now that Judge Gaston’s motion to dismiss has been denied, the case can proceed. A trial date has not yet been scheduled but is expected next year.
Hot-Headed Michael Van Deelen is Beaten-Up and Sorrels Law is His Chosen Personal Injury Law Firm
The suit styles Michael Van Deelen as Michael Van Deelan, but the Spring-based Van Deelen fits the personality in the petition.
Roman Catholic Church Sexual Abuse Case: Catholic Judges’ Harmless Error Protects Sexual Predators
As with the Boy Scouts, where practically every judge sends their kids, the Catholic Church is another protected legal community.
Debtors Prison: Judge and Lawyers Conspiracy Deemed a Constitutional Violation by Contradictory Fifth Circuit
5th Circuit finds complaint sufficiently alleged facts that Judge Lambert and the attorneys conspired to violate Ballards due process rights.
Thomas Wink
June 5, 2021 at 7:36 pm
Judge Gaston is a loose cannon and does not follow the law as established by the legislature. I have personally watched him disregard the facts of a case and the applicable laws giving custody to a deadbeat father over the historical caregiver(mother). He admitted to making his decision even before the mother’s lawyer was finished. The child was an A & B student in Lebanon and is now a D & F student in Dixon MO. He is being passed to the next grade and should not be.