Member Login

Lost your password?

Not a member yet? Sign Up!

Federal Lawsuit Against 3 Deputies and Sheriff

November 21, 2014
By

Federal LawsuitThree Marshall County Sheriff’s Department deputies along with Marshall County Sherriff, Tom Chamberlin, have been named as defendants in a federal lawsuit filed with the United States District Court, South Bend Division, by Gregory Shortt, Kimberly Shortt, and Constance Bradley.

Deputies Jonathon Bryant, Joseph Giordano, and Jordan Rans are named individually for an incident which occurred on November 4, 2013. Chamberlin is being sued in his official capacity as sheriff and final policy making authority for the Marshall County Sheriff’s Department.

Gregory Shortt and wife Kimberly Shortt, along with Kimberly’s daughter Constance Bradley reside at a residence on Twelve Road in rural Plymouth.

Kimberly Shortt is also the mother of Zachary Bradley who shared an apartment on Adams Street in Plymouth with his girlfriend, Adrien Prockno, at the time of the incident.

The only details available at this time are the allegations laid out in the lawsuit.

According to allegations included in the lawsuit filing, Bryant, Giordano, and Rans knocked on the door of the Twelve Road residence and announced themselves as Marshall County officers. Kimberly Shortt and Bradley indicated that they were getting dressed. Prockno had entered the home prior to the arrival of law enforcement. They allege that the deputies forcibly entered the home with no warrant, weapons drawn and did not state the reason for entering. At some point, Kimberly Shortt, Bradley and Prockno were handcuffed and eventually escorted from the home by an Indiana State Police officer.

Gregory Shortt arrived at the residence and was informed by law enforcement that it was believed that Zachary Bradley was hiding in the attic and that there was a warrant for his arrest. Bradley had been released from incarceration in March, 2013 and was on probation. A warrant was issued for Bradley in July, 2013 in relation to an issue with his probationary status. His family had been made aware of the warrant for Zachary Bradley in the autumn of 2013.

Gregory Shortt, Kimberly Shortt, and Constance Bradley were not charged with any crime. It was noted in the verbiage of the lawsuit, that Prockno was observed being taken away from the scene by Indiana State Police.

Included in the lawsuit is the following: “Collectively, the Plaintiffs have suffered damages but not limited to medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, mental distress, and loss of reputation”.

The lawsuit also outlines allegations of a history and pattern of abuses that have been directed to the Plaintiffs by law enforcement.

The Plaintiffs are being represented by Bradley Colborn, Anderson-Agostino & Keller, P. C., South Bend and Morris Rosen, Attorney At Law, South Bend.

The Plaintiffs are seeking a trial by jury.

Tags: , ,

9 Responses to “ Federal Lawsuit Against 3 Deputies and Sheriff ”

  1. Andrew on December 10, 2014 at 5:35 am

    KDM,

    Not that the “older” generation be discounted, I have been following actually both cases on Justia. It was also rather amusing that this individual obtained a rebuke from the judge where it would have been hoped that an advantage would have been obtainable. Where I agree that people have a right to challenge unjust laws –and there have been many that have suffered under a lot of them for long periods of time, one has to draw the line between actual and historical problems. As one can go through the world wearing rose colored glasses as you seem to allege that I do, one can also see the boogey man where there is none.

    As for living under a bubble, well that may have been true 24 years ago, but I moved on from that area and have been all over the world — enough to know that were are going with your attitudes is doing society no go at all. I have lived in societies that still have priorities based on the good of society, were America has sunk into self-centeredness by and large. It’s all about personal rights and not the rights of the greater society. Don’t forget the immortal words of John F. Kennedy, “As not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country!” Were have we gone since then?

  2. kdm on December 9, 2014 at 1:36 pm

    Oh, Andrew…

    That’s the problem with living in a bubble. You only get the information that is fed to you. I see that you cited the link in which a federal court issued a sanction against me for suing the City of Plymouth. Too bad the source from which you obtained that story did not run a subsequent story informing the citizens of your community that the court reversed its decision.

    It would appear to me that the story was run in an effort to discourage citizens from pursuing their rights. But I, like the “younger generation” you mention, will not allow people to be un- or mis-informed.

    By the way, why don’t you remove your shield of anonymity and allow the good folks of plymouth to know who you really are? Then, perhaps, you would not be so inclined to make ridiculous and indefensible comments.

  3. Andrew on November 29, 2014 at 12:34 pm

    Oh and KDM,

    This reminds me of another similar story where somebody “thought” they knew more than the authorities about civil rights and the constitution and well it turned out otherwise. That’s the difference between having an actual credential in law (enforcement) and being a wanabee, which is mostly where this seems to be heading these days.

    For your reference:

    http://am1050.com/2013/federal-court-sanctions-plaintiff-who-sued-citys-k-9-unit/

  4. Andrew on November 29, 2014 at 11:54 am

    (Kathy please use this and delete the other one from me)

    KDM.

    I was born and raised in Marshall County, but at a time when things were not as screwed up as they are now…

    I find your knowledge of the law very one-sided, where it is true that people have certain constitutional rights — they are also bound by certain responsibilities and obligations. Darn — I said that naughty word didn’t I? The problem is today too many younger generation people know all about their rights, but not how to behave in an ordered society — one where you balance those rights with those of society. The decline of the country has been in no small part than people like this.

    Now to you “observations”. Clearly, one can assume, that if one had previously been there to notify that Bradley had a warrant for an arrest it might be reasonable to assume they will be back at some point — save for having young Bradley turn him self in as would have been the case if we are dealing with people that are law abiding and respectful of order.

    What is the most dangerous part of the changes in our society is when people think they know more than professional law enforcement. We end up with half-baked conclusions on things and end up with a kind of vigilante sort of existence — something I really would rather not be in.

    I am old enough to remember when plymouth was more Mayberry like — only two city police cars, a small sheriffs department and Jail and somehow we didn’t have these modern issues of today. But then again we were more respectful of law and order and did appreciate the actions of law enforcement that worked on the SOCIETIES’s best interest.

    While on the subject of “mayberry” it should be noted that having respect for law and order produces mayberry like societies, not the other way around — again a point probably lost on the younger since it means having to give up something.

    Oh and BTW — It would behoove you also to perhaps take a survey on how things in an ordered society are supposed to work where people give and not always take.

    Just Sayin (using the current vernacular).

  5. Andrew on November 29, 2014 at 11:29 am

    KDM.

    I was born and raised in Marshall County, but at a time when things were not as screwed up as they are now…

    I find your knowledge of the law very one-sided, where it is true that people have certain constitutional rights — they are also bound by certain responsibilities and obligations. Darn — I said that naughty word didn’t I? The problem is today too many younger generation people know all about their rights, but not how to behave in an ordered society — one where you balance those rights with those of society. The decline of the country has been in no small part than people like this.

    Now to you “observations”. Clearly, one can assume, that if one had previously been there to notify that Bradley had a warrant for an arrest it might be reasonable to assume they will be back at some point — save for having young Bradley turn him self in as would have been the case if we are dealing with people that are law abiding and respectful of order.

    What is the most dangerous part of the changes in our society is when people think they know more than professional law enforcement. We end up with half-baked conclusions on things and end up with a kind of vigilante sort of existence — something I really would rather not be in.

    I am old enough to remember when plymouth was more Mayberry like — only two city police cars, a small sheriffs department and Jail and somehow we didn’t have these modern issues of today. But then again we were more respectful of law and order and did appreciate the actions of law enforcement that worked on the SOCIETIES’s best interest.

    Oh and BTW — It would behoove you also to perhaps take a survey on how things in an ordered society supposed to work where people give and not always take — which seems to be the hallmark of today’s younger generation.

    Just Sayin (using the current vernacular).

  6. america1 on November 25, 2014 at 5:21 pm

    Well said kdm !!!

  7. Thor on November 25, 2014 at 1:57 pm

    kdm Since the only story in the story is the one by those brining the suit I think it’s a bit early to believe the alleged description of events.

    Andrew’s point of their having no right to expect anything of than a bad reputation is relevant as girlfriend of the perp (knowingly harboring) was in the home making the parents accessories.

    Of course IANAL so I will await a more full description of events.

  8. kdm on November 24, 2014 at 10:48 am

    Really, Andrew? Is that the best you have? Clearly, you overlooked the allegation that the deputies “forcibly entered the home with no warrant, weapons drawn, and did not state the reason for entering.”

    I don’t know where you’re from, but in these United States of America, there is a constitution that protects all citizens against unlawful search and seizure. Look it up…

    I know Plymouth is small, but it is not Mayberry…police simply cannot run around like Barney Fife waving their guns around and bursting into individuals’ residences absent exigent circumstances. Clearly, there were none here. (By the way, The indiana Court of Appeals just reiterated that an arrest warrant does not constitute an exigent circumstance.)

  9. Andrew on November 22, 2014 at 3:30 am

    Oh Brother.

    If they were so concerned about “loss of reputation” why didn’t they urge young Bradley to give himself up when they were informed that a warrant existed for his arrest!? I think most would agree that that makes them just as guilty.

    I would be curious specifically how much time elapsed between the notification and this visit. “Autumn” is a bit hazy. Certainly though, they were in contact enough even if it was only a few weeks to get this right with the law.

    I think they forfeit any sense of “reputation” but not doing this and I would hope the jury sees this the same way.