Federal judge won’t step aside in strip search cases

Listen to this article

A federal judge has denied the city of Milwaukee’s requests that he step aside from his involvement in four strip search cases.

The Milwaukee City Attorney’s office had filed separate motions March 24 asking that U.S. District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller remove himself from the proceedings against Leo Hardy, Chavies Hoskin, Edward Wright and Jermaine Caine. In all four cases, the plaintiffs alleged they had been illegally strip-searched by the Milwaukee Police Department. Stadtmueller is one of a number of judges presiding over the cases.

In the 28-page order issued Friday, Stadtmueller wrote that has was “surprised — indeed, taken aback – by the City’s motions.”

According to the motions, his statements from a Sept. 9, 2014, pretrial conference in Bohannon v. City of Milwaukee, a March 20, 2014, scheduling conference in the Caine case, and the order in Hardy vs. City of Milwaukee issued Feb. 27 showed “’deep-seated favoritism or antagonism’ that could lead a reasonable, well-informed observer to conclude that fair judgment is impossible …”

According to Section 455(a) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code, federal judges, justices or magistrates must recuse themselves from proceedings in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

Miriam Horwitz, deputy city attorney who filed the motions on behalf of the city, reached Friday, would not comment on the order.

One of the statements the motions refers to was one made in a Feb. 27 order in Hardy regarding illegal traffic stops: “… it is apparent that MPD has opted to continue the sort of illegal stops that Mr. Hardy was subject to. MPD Chief Ed Flynn has made clear that one of his prerogatives is encouraging large amounts of pedestrian stops, regardless of the reasons.”

In the order denying Horwitz’s motions, Stadtmueller wrote that the statements the motion referred to were all made in the context of reaching conclusions that were favorable to the city.

Stadtmueller noted in the order that he has been assigned more than 7,000 civil cases, including more than 70 involving the city of Milwaukee. The motion, he wrote, is only the second time he has been asked to step aside. His response to that motion, Stadtmueller wrote, appears to apply to this instance.

According to the order, several times over the course of the cases, he had admonished the Milwaukee City Attorney’s defense team for not conducting themselves professionally and in accordance with his expectations, which include that attorneys cooperate with plaintiffs, be adequately prepared for trial and avoid submitting poorly supported legal arguments. Stadtmueller suggested in the order that the admonishments may be related to the motion questioning his ability to be impartial.

“If some in the City – whether in the City Attorney’s Office, the MPD or the City’s broader leadership – disagree,” he said in the opinion, “I am left to view their opinion – whether collectively or individually – as the ‘product of a badly bruised ego,’ rather than a well-founded belief that I have done anything to indicate partiality when viewed against the backdrop of the entire record in these cases.”

“I have acted fairly and impartially throughout the course of these cases and none of my statements, together or separately, indicate any way that I will not continue to do so,” Stadtmueller wrote in the opinion. “I do not believe that any observed could reasonably view me as partial.” Follow @erikastrebel