Arrestee who claimed that deputies shot him numerous times in an attempt to murder him failed to allege a pattern of racketeering activity as required for a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961, et seq., when all of the acts he claimed had occurred arose from the single incident. Curry v. Baca, No. CV 04-9992, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 56817 (C.D. Cal.).
     An arrestee who was convicted of coercion in the first degree and his wife claimed that various governmental officials, and the wife's father and brother "set up" the arrestee as part of a scheme to protect the father and brother from criminal responsibility for sexually abusing the wife, and that the arrestee only pled guilty to the charges against him because of duress. They claimed that the defendants engaged in witness intimidation and extortion and that their conduct violated provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 1961-1968, and caused the cancellation of the arrestee's infomerical contract. The federal trial court held that the plaintiff arrestee could not use the RICO statute to challenge the validity of a conviction that had not been overturned, and that the wife did not show that she suffered any injury to her own property or business as a result of the defendants' alleged conduct. The arrestee also failed to show that the alleged RICO violations, including actions of witness intimidation and a parking ticket extortion scheme, caused the damage to his economic interests in the infomercial contract, and therefore also could not pursue a RICO claim. The lawsuit was dismissed. Moore v. Guesno, No. 05-CV-6178, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 34406 (W.D.N.Y.).
     Acquitted murder suspect's allegation that Chicago police detectives conspired to frame him and several others for a murder they did not commit did not constitute a valid civil RICO claim despite the scheme purportedly involving multiple criminal acts, over a period of years, and targeting multiple victims, when there was no indication that the detectives engaged in any misconduct before or after the alleged scheme, or threatened to do so in the future. Under these circumstances, there was no "pattern" of racketeering activity. Gamboa v. Velez, No. 05-1690, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 20493 (7th Cir.). [2006 LR Oct]
     Business owners failed to assert a valid claim against the city and its officials and employees, including the police chief, under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961, or under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, by stating that they engaged in wire and mail fraud. The plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient specifics of the defendants' actions and only provided general conclusory statements that they were deprived of federally protected rights. Leeds v. City of Muldraugh, Meade County, Kentucky, No. 04-6495, 174 Fed. Appx. 251 (6th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
     Officers had probable cause to stop motorist's vehicle under the Fourth Amendment when it was missing a required front license plate. An officer's subsequent impounding of the vehicle was not "extortion" or any other "racketeering" offense required to support the motorist's subsequent claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1951(b)(2), since there was legal authority for his actions. Further, the court rules that the city, as an entity, was not legally capable of "malicious intent" required to support a civil RICO action against it under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961 et seq. Banks v. Department of Motor Vehicles, No. CV 05-2037, 419 F. Supp. 2d 1186 (C.D. Cal. 2006). [N/R]
     Purported police harassment of witness who claimed to have witnessed two police officers murdering a woman was an insufficient basis for a civil RICO claim. The plaintiff's alleged loss of employment income because of false arrest and malicious prosecution, and his expenses for attorneys' fees to defend himself were not an injury to "business or property" as required for standing to bring a RICO lawsuit. Federal appeals court also upholds dismissal of plaintiff's First Amendment civil rights claim and state law claims as untimely. Evans v. City of Chicago, No. 03-3844, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 264 (7th Cir.). [2006 LR Feb]
     Federal appeals court finds that arrestee could pursue a claim under RICO against the Los Angeles Police Department and its personnel for alleged economic losses, including loss of employment or employment opportunities, stemming from his purportedly "unjust incarceration" on charges he claims were based on evidence fabricated against him. Diaz v. Gates, No. 02-56818, 420 F.3d 897 (9th Cir. 2005). [2005 LR Nov]
     Towing service operator failed to show that new sheriff modified his towing area in retaliation for his support of another candidate for sheriff, or that the sheriff and his undersheriff engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of RICO in connection with maintenance of a list of favored tow service operators. Roger Whitmore's Auto. Serv. v. Del Re, #04-1978, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 20296 (7th Cir.). [2005 LR Nov]
      Village itself could not form criminal intent required for a claim under the Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961, et seq. Village constables, in allegedly violating a state statute prohibiting offering false instruments for filing by writing traffic tickets without authority to do so, did not constitute predicate criminal acts for purposes of a RICO civil claim because they were not punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. Claim that village officials mailed notices regarding the allegedly invalid traffic citations, however, could constitute acts of mail fraud as part of an alleged scheme to enforce tickets. Brewer v. Village of Old Field, 311 F. Supp. 2d 390 (E.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
     Insurer had an obligation, under law enforcement liability policy, to defend and indemnify village in class action lawsuit claiming that it had violated the Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961 et seq. by allowing its constables to issue traffic tickets without authority to do so, despite dispute over whether village constables had law enforcement duties. Brewer v. Village of Old Field, 311 F. Supp. 2d 382 (E.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
    Losses that individual allegedly incurred as a result of wrongful incarceration on narcotics charges, including loss of employment and wages, were "personal injuries," rather than injuries to the plaintiff's business or property, so that he was not able to bring a lawsuit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1964(c) against city officials and police officers who allegedly conspired to falsely arrest and maliciously prosecute him. Guerrero v. Gates, #02-56017, 357 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     The alleged damage to an arrestee's ability to earn a living that stemmed from a purportedly false charge and false conviction for assault with a deadly weapon did not qualify as an injury to "business or property" as required to establish a claim for damages against a police officer under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961, et seq. Diaz v. Gates, #02-56818, 354 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Municipalities could not have the required "criminal intent" needed to show a "pattern of racketeering activity" under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961, et seq., and a plaintiff traffic flagging service failed to show commission of predicate criminal acts by police union presidents, so court orders dismissal of RICO lawsuit against municipalities and presidents claiming that plaintiff lost contracts because of ordinances giving law enforcement officers the exclusive right or right of first refusal on contracts to provide traffic control services. Interstate Flagging, Inc. v. Town of Darien, 283 F. Supp. 2d 641 (D. Conn. 2003). [N/R]
     334:157 Federal trial judge rules that plaintiff in lawsuit against Los Angeles police officers, claiming that they planted evidence to frame him for a drug offense, could pursue racketeering (RICO) claims against the defendants, as well as seek injunctive relief against future similar misconduct. Guerrero v. Gates, #CV 00-7165 WJR(CTx), 110 F.Supp. 2d 1287 (C.D. Cal. 2000).
     Federal court rules that a city cannot be held liable, either directly or vicariously, under RICO statute Biondolillo v. City of Sunrise, 736 F.Supp. 258 (S.D.Fla 1990).
     Subway passengers alleging wrongful arrests by transit police seeking to obtain job promotions stated civil RICO claim Yeadon v. NYC Transit Authority, 719 F.Supp. 204 (S.D.NY, 1989).