Verdict may not end Sofield controversy

The family has less than two years to decide whether to file a lawsuit against area police forces. Although College freshman Bill Sofield was acquitted last Wednesday of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest charges stemming from an October 30 incident, it is still unclear exactly what happened that night at the Phi Gamma Delta fraternity house on Locust Walk. If the Sofield family files a civil suit against the University alleging police brutality, a trial could once and for all settle the allegations and rumors that have engulfed the University community for months. While Common Pleas Judge James Deleon found the 18-year-old Sofield "not guilty" and said there was no basis for the arrest, an internal University Police investigation concluded that officers acted properly in arresting Sofield and did not use an unnecessary amount of force. The University's conclusion was based on the premise that an intoxicated Sofield was resisting arrest, requiring police to use force in order to handcuff him. But to the Sofields and many FIJI brothers, Sofield's acquittal on charges of resisting arrest raises doubts about whether the police were actually justified in forcefully arresting Sofield. The Sofield family has until October 30, 1999 -- two years after the arrest -- to file a lawsuit. Such a lawsuit would require a considerably longer process than last week's 3 1/2-hour trial. The burden of proof would be on the Sofields, who would have to prove that police officers used excessive force when arresting Bill Sofield. And in order to assess whether the actions of those police officers did not violate Sofield's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures -- in effect, whether police action was reasonable under the circumstances -- the jury must analyze the specific circumstances surrounding the incident. "The standards [for alleging police brutality] are very context-based," said Temple Law Professor David Kairys, a criminal-justice expert. "There's a range of factual issues that would have to be resolved? and the jury would have to look at the totality of the situation." That could be a formidable task. The situation is complicated by the other incidents from the night of October 30. Sofield's companion, 26-year-old Warnell "Yode" Owens, allegedly assaulted four police officers, causing one to suffer major facial injuries. The assault attracted more than 40 police officers to Locust Walk. The incident began when University Police Officer Jeff Dougherty encountered Bill Sofield, his 28-year-old brother, assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Sofield, and Owens outside the fraternity house where they were allegedly arguing loudly. Dougherty cited the three for disorderly conduct, prompting Bill Sofield and Owens to run into the house. As police tried to enter the house to arrest Sofield and Owens, Owens fled through the building's back door, allegedly assaulting the officers. The officers responding to the assaults, who were united only by the knowledge that Sofield was somehow connected to Owens, were from five different forces and had no official supervisor. Many of them were unaware of Sofield's alleged offense. The Sofields would probably argue in a civil suit that the officers' outrage over the assaults, combined with the huge police presence, contributed to an overall lack of restraint among the officers. During the criminal trial, Sofield attorney Walter Phillips likened the officers to "storm troopers," an image the Sofields may stress in a civil suit. But the presence of so many police may also raise complications in any allegations of brutality. During the trial, several FIJI brothers who witnessed the incident were unable to identify most of the officers they accused of beating Sofield. And the large police presence is not necessarily indicative of an intent to use force, according to Robert Hunn, a police-brutality expert. "Police are often of the opinion that there is safety in numbers, especially in situations where drinking is going on," said Hunn, a professor at Temple. Indeed, because drinking was allegedly "going on" inside the FIJI house, police have argued that alcohol is the real culprit in the incident -- an assertion that could aid the police case for several reasons. For one, Bill Sofield, Richard Sofield and Owens have admitted they were drinking for several hours before the incident. Bill Sofield's intoxication could have made it more difficult for police to arrest him, even if his resistance was not significant enough to warrant a conviction on criminal charges. Furthermore, police issued no alcohol-related citations while inside the FIJI house. That could contradict the notion that the officers were making arrests with reckless abandon. The Sofields also face some difficult choices over filing a civil suit. Richard Sofield admitted during the trial that he was "buzzed" and supplied his underage brother with alcohol. Although Phillips maintained that Richard Sofield's career is not an "issue they are considering" in the decision to file, experts said his job as an assistant U.S. attorney could be in jeopardy. In addition, Dougherty testified that the elder Sofield repeatedly yelled obscenities at him and taunted him with his status as an attorney. Because the younger Sofield, who received a concussion in the incident, was not permanently injured, the ends that could be gained in a law suit -- whatever amount the Sofields deem appropriate for Bill's psychological and physical losses -- may not justify the means.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.