Offering the common-sense observation that repeatedly assaulting a handcuffed woman with pepper spray and urinating on her serves “no legitimate law enforcement purpose,” U.S. District Judge Gary L. Lancaster has rejected a claim of “sovereign immunity presented by three Pennsylvania State Troopers  accused of torturing Derena Marie Madison following a traffic stop roughly a year ago.

At about 2:30 a.m. on February 3, 2011, Pennsylvania State Troopers Chad Weaver and Michael Zampogna pulled over a vehicle driven by Jamie Cornell, who was arrested on suspicion of driving while intoxicated. After Cornell was taken into custody, the troopers threatened to have the vehicle towed. This prompted Cornell’s passenger, Derena Marie Madison, to exit the car in protest. In short order she was arrested for public drunkenness and disorderly conduct.

Shackled at the wrists and ankles, Madison was taken to a nearby State Police barracks. Judge Lancaster’s memorandum describes what reportedly happened next:

“Ms. Madison, with hands still restrained behind her back, was placed on a bench. Her feet were shackled to the bench. As she sat on the bench, Mr. Weaver twice sprayed Ms. Madison’s face, head and body with pepper spray, without justification. The other defendants saw the spraying, but took no action to prevent it. Ms. Madison alleges that the actions were for the purpose of torturing her.”

Still trussed with handcuffs and leg shackles, Madison was unable to wipe the pepper spray residue from her face. When she called for help, “several defendants carried her downstairs and outside the barracks,” continues Lancaster. The victim “was unable to identify the defendants who carried her, because she was blinded by the pepper spray” – which is why the lawsuit names two officer “Does” involved in the assault.

“Once outside, one or more of the defendants, whose identities are likewise unknown, doused her with large quantities of cold water,” the memorandum recounts. “Ms. Madison blacked out momentarily, and fell to her knees in the snow. When she regained consciousness, she felt and smelled urine on her head, face, neck, and person. She believes that while she was unconscious, one or more of the defendants urinated on her. Ms. Madison remained handcuffed and in leg manacles throughout this period.”

Taken back to inside the barracks, Madison was chained to the bench again and briefly held before being released without receiving medical attention. Eleven days later, she was formally charged with public drunkness and disorderly conduct, and eventually found guilty on both charges.

Responding to Miss Madison’s lawsuit, the State Troopers didn’t contest her account; instead, they claimed that their actions were taken pursuant to their duties, and therefore they were protected by “sovereign immunity”:

“Defendants claim sovereign immunity with respect to [Madison’s ] tort claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and assault and battery…. [They] argue that subduing persons is one of the acts law enforcement officers are employed to perform [and that] officers are also permitted to use force, if necessary, in the commission of their duties.”

Although the State Troopers describe Madison as an “out-of-control person,” there is no evidence that she did anything other than express her displeasure over the prospect of being abandoned once Cornell’s vehicle had been towed away. Furthermore, as Judge Lancaster astringently observes, assaulting the shackled woman with pepper spray and urine are acts “not related to `subduing’ her”; instead, they “suggest personal motivation, rather than intent to serve the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”

An AP story points out that Madison has a long arrest record for various kinds of disorderly conduct. Obviously, this wouldn’t justify the treatment she reportedly received – but it might suggest why the officers felt free to treat her with such concentrated disdain and casual cruelty, then justify that behavior as a routine part of their job.  A federal judge rejected that claim – but the fact it was made in the first place tells us volumes about the mindset of those who supposedly protect and serve us.

For the details of this case, see Judge Lancaster’s preliminary ruling here.