In this 1992 case, ninja is used to refer to the attire of law enforcement personnel. Recall this previous case of DEA agents in ninja outfits. This case arises with allegation of excessive force, which will become a common theme for future cases involving ninja law enforcement.
MITCHELL L. POPE, Plaintiff, v. CRAIG KLEMENS; SGT. PAT WILSON; DON KNECHTEL; PATTY LUCIANO; CLYDE SMITH; PAUL WEIDNER; and MARK BURNS, All City of Lansing, Michigan Police Officers, Defendants.
File No. 5:90-CV-55
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8686
Decided – February 18, 1992
The case arises from the search of an apartment where the police had previously made a purchase of cocaine (but not from the Plaintiff):
According to plaintiff, the following occurred during the search. The police entered the residence and yelled, “police search warrant.” Two search warrants were put on the counter. Plaintiff states that he thought it was a joke, but when he rounded the corner into the kitchen, he saw a “person with a mask on in a ninja suite [sic] holding a pistol. This was the first person in the door. This person came towards me, and put the pistol at my face with the light on for the sites. This person backed me up a sort [sic] distance till my rear came to the table, and I was there with my hands up and had this gun at my face, pointed between my eyes. . . . This person kicked me in the chest, while I had my hands over my head. He kicked at me while he had me at gun point. And kicked with intent to do grate [sic] bodily harm.”
Based on that,
Plaintiff accuses all defendants of violating his fourth amendment rights on the grounds that there was no probable cause to justify the search and seizure. Plaintiff also states a claim for excessive force against the person allegedly camouflaged in a “ninja” suit who, while pointing a gun at plaintiff, allegedly kicked plaintiff in the chest.
Plaintiff seeks $ 300,000.00 in compensatory damages and the return of all arrest cards and other incriminating information.
Dismissing the claim, the Court writes:
Plaintiff has provided no evidence of any injury or corroborating evidence by any of the other witnesses. Allegations supported by only a scintilla of evidence are insufficient to demonstrate a genuine issue of fact. Accordingly, I find in favor of defendants on plaintiff’s fourth amendment excessive force claim.