◆ SpookStack

Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1870 87 I have some problem in analyzing the impact on plain- tiffs’ case of the several possible findings with respect to a conspiracy. The main objective of plaintiffs appears to be recovery of damages arising from the events of the raid. Undeniably there was loss of life, loss of liberty (including bodily injury), and invasion of privacy. The § 1983 claim for those damages must rest upon es- tablishing that life and liberty were taken without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amend- ment (or that privacy was invaded in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments). If the search warrant was valid and if the force used was not ex- cessive under the circumstances, that § 1988 claim (and any corresponding § 1985(8) claim) must fail. I agree that the jury could properly find a conspiracy by federal and state defendants to discredit and hamper BPP in its political activity and thus impair First Amendment rights. But it would not follow, without more, that the search, if found to be unconstitutional, or the use of force, if found to be excessive, was within the objects of that conspiracy. The activity of the federal defendants in surveillance of a group from whom violent, unlawful conduct was expected, and in inform- ing state officers of the floor plan and possession of weapons could be found to have been legitimate activity and cooperation in law enforcement, and not wrongtul acts pursuant to a conspiracy, even though the jury also found a conspiracy to disrupt or discredit BPP politically. In my view, there could be no recovery of damages, aris- ing from the raid, based solely on a conspiracy theory, unless the jury was satisfied that the unlawful raid or the use of excessive force in carrying out a lawful raid was within the objects of the conspiracy. In the discussion of immunity, Judge Swygert suggests that certain defendants may be liable for damages resulting from the generation of post-raid publicity misrepresenting the facts. Whatever course may be followed on retrial with respect to such a claim, it seems clear that plaintiffs cannot recover damages for injury to reputation, without more. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 698, 712 (1976). °