WINNEMUCCA — A wrongful death suit filed against Winnemucca, the Winnemucca Police Department, and individual officers from that department was dismissed last week in US Federal Court.

The suit was filed by the parents of George Moritz who was shot and killed on May 26, 2006. The suit alleged George Moritz’s civil rights were violated by the WPD whose officers briefly detained the two suspects prior to the shooting but released them without confiscating their firearm. The suit also alleged favoritism was shown to the defendants because one of them was related to an officer from the WPD; though, that officer was not on duty at the time and was not involved in the incident.

The defendants, through their attorney, counter-argued they couldn’t have violated the victim’s civil rights because they had no contact with him. Further, the contact between the WPD did not put George Moritz into a dangerous situation he would not otherwise have faced -- an important element of the law.

“In this matter, the Court recognizes that what happened on the night of May 26, 2006, was a tragic occurrence.  However, Plaintiffs have failed to show that such an occurrence was also a constitutional violation by the Defendants,” the order of dismissal noted.

CASE HISTORY:  Events began in May  2006 with the report of a drive-by shooting in the Warmouth subdivision.  A witness called 911 to report the shooting and a description of a vehicle leaving the area was given to dispatchers.

Within minutes of the report, officers from the WPD stopped a vehicle matching the description of the one given by the witness.  Inside the car were Matt Hutchinson and Nick Andrews.

Andrews acknowledged he had a firearm, which was examined and did in fact have two rounds missing. However, the officers did not feel the gun had been used recently and the two young men were released.

At that time, officers did not know the gun had been used to fire into the home of another young man involved in a dispute with Andrews.  Evidence of the drive-by shooting was not discovered until the next morning and months would pass before ballistics tests positively identified a bullet recovered from the home as having been fired from the gun owned by Andrews.

Feeling they lacked probable cause to arrest the two men or seize the gun, officers released Hutchinson and Andrews – who were let go and told to go home.  The bullets were removed from the gun, but both the bullets and the gun were placed back into the car.

However, the two young men did not go home. Instead, they later made their way to Sonoma Canyon where George Moritz was camping with several other young people. Hutchinson used the gun to shoot George Moritz in the head.  No definitive motive for the murder has been forwarded; though, there was testimony that Moritz had previously dated Hutchinson’s girlfriend.

Hutchinson pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.  Andrews was charged as an accomplice to first-degree murder and is awaiting trial. He has pleaded not guilty to the charge.

THE FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT:  The parents of George Moritz filed suit in 2008 claiming their son’s civil rights were violated when officer from the WPD failed to act following the drive-by shooting in a way that would have protected their son and the public. Further, they allege the failure to act was tied to preferential treatment shown to Andrews whose stepfather is a WPD officer.

THE DISMISSAL: The WPD, the city of Winnemucca, and the individual officers named in the suit filed a motion for judgment, which in the matter at hand acted as a motion for dismissal.

They argued, through their attorney, that the plaintiffs failed to establish they were entitled to recover claims and that any action taken by them caused the deprivation of George Moritz’s constitutional rights.

They argued the Due Process Clause of the Constitution does not impose a duty upon the state to protect its citizens from the actions of third-parties, but is designed to protect citizens from actions taken by the government itself.

There are exceptions to the rule.  One is the “danger creation” exception where actions taken by the government exposed an individual to harm they would have otherwise not faced.  The court ruled the danger creation exception did not apply in this case because the actions of the WPD did not create a danger for George Moritz that he otherwise would not have faced.  Further, the danger to George Moritz could not have been known and obvious to the officers, which are elements required within the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Law enforcement officers are immune from lawsuits unless there’s evidence of civil rights violations.