Monthly Law Journal Article: Enforceability of Civil Liability Release Agreements, 2008 (3) AELE Mo. L.J. 101.
     A man claimed that a number of police officers assaulted him in his home, and that a second group of officers, also present, failed to intervene to stop the unjustified use of force, which he contended constituted gross negligence. Claims against the second group of officers were settled for a total of $25,000, and a signed release agreement was entered into which stated that it covered the discharge of "all other persons" from the plaintiff's claims. The first group of officers, who were alleged to have assaulted the plaintiff, argued that the release covered claims against them as well as against the second group of officers, despite the fact that they had not signed it, paid nothing under it, and were represented by separate counsel and insurance companies. An intermediate Michigan appeals court upheld these officers' interpretation. The Michigan Supreme Court has now reversed, and in so doing overturned a prior state court decision barring the use of testimony and other extrinsic evidence outside of the language of a release when an unnamed party asserts third-party beneficiary rights based on broad language in a liability release, and when there is an ambiguity as to the intended scope of the coverage of the release. The plaintiff's intent, it was argued, had been to only settle with the second group of officers. Further proceedings were ordered on this issue. Shay v. Aldrich, #138908, 2010 Mich. Lexis 1700.
     An arrestee sued a prosecutor for allegedly wrongfully requiring him to refrain from filing a civil lawsuit against private parties with whom he had a fight in exchange for dismissing criminal charges against him. He had violated the agreement by filing a civil lawsuit, been prosecuted as a result, and was found not guilty. The federal appeals court ruled that an allegedly improper motive by the prosecutor was insufficient to defeat his defense of absolute prosecutorial immunity to the lawsuit, so long as his actions fell within the general scope of his duties as an advocate in connection with judicial proceedings. Entering into a release-dismissal agreement, like the one used in this case, falls within a prosecutor's normal duties in deciding whom to prosecute. Cady v. Arenac County, #08-1795, 574 F.3d 334 (6th Cir. 2009).
     A property owner charged with drug possession, among other charges, arising from the search of her motor home pursuant to a warrant, entered into an enforceable release-dismissal agreement in which she agreed to dismiss her federal civil rights lawsuit in exchange for the dropping of criminal charges against her. Her lawsuit claimed that the district attorney and police pressed "frivolous" charges against her for the purpose of impounding her motor home for their own use. She subsequently attempted to claim that the release-dismissal agreement was not enforceable, but the court noted that she had been represented by a competent lawyer, had been repeatedly told by the court what the meaning of the agreement was, and had stated at the time she signed the agreement that she knew what she was doing. Franco v. Chester Township Police Dept., No. 05-5133, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 743 (3rd Cir.).
     Arrestee's release of city and officers from civil liability in exchange for dismissal of criminal charges of domestic violence against her was fully enforceable. Alabama statute prohibiting the crime of "compounding," punishing agreements offering something of value in exchange for not seeking prosecution of a crime, did not apply to city attorney's offer of release agreement. Penn v. City of Montgomery, No. 03-14207, 381 F.3d 1059 (11th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Dec]
     Release agreement that arrestee signed in connection with a negotiated plea on pending criminal charges was not enforceable when the available evidence failed to show that the arrestee voluntarily entered into an agreement to waive his right to sue a police officer and the prosecutor. The arrestee was not advised at either the arraignment or the plea hearing of his right to counsel concerning the entry of the plea. Jimenez v. Brunner, 328 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (D. Utah 2004). [N/R]
     Arrestee's excessive force lawsuit against city and its officers was properly dismissed on the basis of a release-dismissal agreement he signed waiving the right to sue in exchange for the dismissal of two of the three criminal charges against him. He voluntarily signed the agreement, there was no indication of prosecutorial misconduct, and enforcing the agreement would not be against the public interest. MacBoyle v. City of Parma, No. 03-3784, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 18412 (6th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Oct]
     Arrestee's agreement to release the city and police officers of civil liability in exchange for the dismissal of pending domestic violence charges against her was voluntary and enforceable, and there was no evidence of overreaching or prosecutorial misconduct in obtaining the release. Penn v. City of Montgomery, 273 F. Supp. 2d 1229 (M.D. Ala. 2003). [N/R]
     Arrestee's release of "all" claims against town's chief of police could reasonably be interpreted as releasing claims against the police chief in his individual capacity. When a release does not specify the capacity in which a person is being released, it is reasonable to interpret it as including both their official and individual capacity. Taylor v. Windsor Locks Police Dept., No. 02-0100, 71 Fed. Appx. 877 (2nd Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     While a release agreement signed by an alleged victim of sexual assault by a former city police officer was voluntarily entered into in exchange for a plea agreement on pending intoxicated driving charges, a federal trial court ruled that there were "relevant public interests" which barred enforcement of the release. The court noted the evidence supporting the sexual assault claim and ruled that enforcement of the release could adversely affect a public interest in deterring police misconduct. Oliver v. City of Berkley, 261 F. Supp. 2d 870 (E.D. Mich. 2003). [N/R]
     Release agreements which arrestees had signed in exchange for dropping of criminal charges were enforceable, barring their federal civil rights claims against arresting officers for false arrest and excessive force. Gonzalez v. Kokot, #02-1514, 314 F.3d 311 (7th Cir. 2002). [2003 LR Apr]
     Arrestee's agreement to release his right to pursue a federal civil rights lawsuit against state police officials in exchange for prosecutor's dismissal of the remaining criminal charges pending against him was valid and enforceable. Prowell v. Kentucky State Police, #01-6264, 40 Fed. Appx. 86 (6th Cir. 2002). [2002 LR Dec]
     346:148 Release agreement required in every case where a criminal defendant sought placement in first- offenders program involving dismissal of charges was "unenforceable as a matter of law" even if voluntary when no effort was made to distinguish between frivolous and meritorious civil rights claims being waived. Kinney v. City of Cleveland, 144 F. Supp. 2d 908 (N.D. Ohio 2001).
     344:119 A police dog is not a "person" who can be sued for violation of civil rights under color of state law; federal appeals court also upholds enforceability of plaintiff's release agreement which barred his suit against officer. Dye v. Wargo, No. 00-3250, 253 F.3d 296 (7th Cir. 2001).
     {N/R} Federal appeals court declines to enforce an unwritten civil liability release agreement, based on a promise not to prosecute. Livingstone v. No. Belle Vernon Bor., 91 F.3d 515, 1996 U.S. App. Lexis 18905 (3rd Cir.); Cert. Den. 1997 U.S. Lexis 1942.
     Federal appeals court overturns trial court's dismissal of federal civil rights lawsuit based on release-dismissal agreement which was never reduced to writing; appeals court holds that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether plaintiffs gave informed and voluntary consent to the agreement Livingstone v. North Belle Vernon Borough, 12 F.3d 1205 (3rd Cir. 1993).
     Detainee was properly awarded $200,000 in damages against county sheriff despite having signed an agreement releasing sheriff from liability prior to discharge from jail; jury could properly determine that the release agreement was not voluntary and was therefore unenforceable Vallone v. Lee, 7 F.3d 196 (11th Cir. 1993).
     Release of right to bring lawsuit over arrest in exchange for dropping of criminal charges was voluntary, and therefore enforceable, based on factual circumstances of signing of release, federal appeals court rules Hill v. City of Cleveland, 12 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 1993).
     Release-dismissal agreement was valid and enforceable, barring federal civil rights lawsuit, when plaintiff had signed it voluntarily, had not been pressured into doing so, and prosecutor had independent reasons for entering into it besides shielding officers and city from liability Woods v. Rhodes, 994 F.2d 494 (8th Cir. 1993).
     Federal appeals court holds that release of civil rights claim obtained from arrestee in exchange for ultimate dismissal of criminal charges was not enforceable when obtained pursuant to prosecutor's "blanket" policy of requiring such release from any criminal defendant asking to be placed in special disposition program Cain v. Darby Borough, 7 F.3d 377 (3rd Cir. 1993).
     Release from civil liability signed by arrestee charged with biting officer as a condition of placement into a pretrial diversion program was enforceable since it was voluntary and not obtained by prosecutorial misconduct. Cain v. Darby Borough, 817 F.Supp. 1196 (E.D.Pa. 1992).
     Criminal defendant's voluntary release of civil liability, given in exchange for dismissal of charges, was unenforceable in New York. Cowles v. Brownell, 73 N.Y.2d 382, 538 N.E.2d 325, 540 N.Y.S.2d 973 (N.Y. 1989).
     Arrestee's allegation that he was forced to sign release agreement on threat of prosecution and that prosecution was unwarranted was sufficient to question whether release agreement was in the public interest Lynch v. City of Alhambra, 880 F.2d 1122 (9th Cir. 1989).