Saturday, January 4, 2014

NE - Ex-inmate sues State of Nebraska for $150K over sex assault by prison guard Anthony J. Hansen

Anthony J. Hansen
Anthony J. Hansen
Original Article

01/04/2014

By Todd Cooper

A former prisoner has sued the State of Nebraska after a prison guard sexually assaulted him.

Among the allegations, the ex-prisoner — a 31-year-old Douglas County man — said prison officials repeatedly doubted his story that a guard had sexually assaulted him.

Then he produced something to prove it: a napkin containing the guard's “bodily fluids.”

That resulted in the sexual assault conviction of Anthony J. Hansen, 29, a former Omaha Correctional Center guard.

It also resulted in the lawsuit against the state.

According to the prisoner's lawsuit, filed last month, and court records in Douglas County:

In December 2011, the prisoner was sent to the Omaha Correctional Center in east Omaha after his theft conviction.

Hansen immediately approached the prisoner, who had served prison time under him before.

Hansen told the man that if he “did not comply with his sexual requests, Hansen would cause plaintiff to lose good time or be placed in disciplinary segregation,” Omaha attorney Julie Jorgensen wrote in the lawsuit. “Based on previous encounters . . . plaintiff took the conversation as a threat to his future release.”

On Dec. 10, 2011, Hansen approached the prisoner in the cafeteria “with the proposition to meet in the chapel to engage in sexual activity.”

Hansen later approached the prisoner and told him there were cameras in the chapel and they should meet in the commons area.

The prisoner tried to avoid Hansen, but Hansen continued to talk about having sex and continued to make comments about the prisoner's parole date.


14 comments :

nathan rabalais said...

By law K was in the right to refuse to answer that question because it's a question they're not even allowed to ask unless you're on probation

Bird said...

This guy committed official misconduct by abuse of authority, threatened and intimidated an inmate, and last but not least sexually assaulted a man and the judge only sentenced him to two years probation and only twenty five years on the registry. WHAT THE F#(|< is up with that! This judge needs strung up by his robe and thumped in the head with his gavel a few times to knock some sense in to him. My crime involved no violence at all, no threats or intimidation, no rape but yet I spent 6 years in prison and spending the rest of my life on a shaming, hit-list registry. What a load of BS!

dlc said...

This judge should be charged with a crime for going lite on the guard. Go sue the state sir!

dlc said...

Another law enforcement officer who thinks he is above the law. Get an attorney and rattle his cage. That will make him and his department think twice before they do that again. Also file a complaint with the us Marshalls Service and the DOJ.

Mark said...

There was several cases like this in Massachusetts over the years and each and every prisoner won their respective suits. The Mass. legislature enacted a Code of Mass. Regulation stating that any prisoner that has had sexual contact with any prison guard or staff is totally incapable of consent. Since that CMR was enacted, incidents of staff misconduct dropped to almost zero. Just a point of fact for the readers.

Eric Knight said...

I would now file a complaint with both the department as well as the Attorney General's office of your state. Whether the complaint is acted upon is likely not going to happen, but if you have something in the system, and it happens again, then you have the basis for a good lawsuit.

Sex Offender Issues said...

They should make all the money come out of the officers pocket, and if he cannot pay, then they garnish his wages on his next job. Maybe that will send a message?

Mark said...

Sure. What about all those who are beaten, fired, harassed, murdered, kicked out of residences, and maimed? Where are the STATS from James Boyle JD PhD on these matters? Oh yes, that does not count but rather to just enforce a registration that is akin to the inquisition even if persons have committed a sexual offense. I have had many dealings with persons like Mr. Boyle, and I would need more space than this comment box would allow to expositate on their pomposity.

Mark said...

Ah yes, the pencil whippers know how to oppress and truly oppress the weak minded sex offenders. See, they know that many offenders really have very weak personalities and characters. When some resistance is shown, they are actually taken back then the games begin with the "tuff" crap! It figures!

Mark said...

"I have not seen a disciplinary process like this in several years.
They are not a common practice, as Kentucky state troopers rarely have
disciplinary issues," Webb said. I believe this is coined "good PR, and "CYA."

Scott said...

To be clear I would never under any circumstances let a cop come in my house without a warrant. That's just dumb. Now to go against the group a bit I don't think with holding pointless information from the cop is a good idea. Complying with all the registration reqs is a damn near impossible task the last thing you want is to piss off some cop with endless hours of time to find you non compliant. Example: you drive another car sometimes and don't register it. He follows you and charges you. Example: you have a side job working with a friend doing something like moving furniture once a week. You don't register that cuz who would? He follows you and charges you.

Just seems like it's less risky to answer questions like that to not get on a cops radar unless you can say you are 100 percent compliant with all those dumbass laws 100 percent of the time. If you can then following what this guy did maybe an ok move. But for the majority I wouldn't advise it.

Kevin said...

There's a fine balance between rolling over to avoid future harassment and standing up for one's rights. As we all know, when being questioned by police, once you start answering unrelated and unnecessary questions you can be easily steered down a path you never intended to go down. That's why lawyers insist you never answer questions regardless of your innocence or lack thereof.

Happy, Joyous and Free said...

This study isn't about RSO's, but about the public using (or not using) the state's website. Somewhere along the line at the state level, analysis was performed on the NJ website and showed that it wasn't getting as much traffic as they expected. So, go to Rutgers, throw research funding (to pay for the research), and have a study done to find out why the NJ website isn't utilized as much.


The upshot of all of this is quite simple... We need to justify the website and its cost, so we need to get as many visitors as possible, We also need to know who isn't accessing the website and how best to get them to access the website. That's what this BS is all about. Rutgers doesn't pony up the research money because it is in the public interest. Rutgers gets NJ funding as a research university. You better believe that the state of NJ spent public tax dollars to find out why the NJ public wasn't using the NJ website, which is publicly funded. More tax dollars wasted and all to justify a process that doesn't work.


Also, if you read the study, you'll see that the study pays lip service to the efficacy of public registration. It's total BS.


The best link to get the unpublished study is here:
http://ubhc.rutgers.edu/vinjweb/publications/articles/ML%20public%20opinion%20survey_FINAL%20FOR%20WEBSITE%20IN%20PRESS.pdf

NJ45143112 said...

This is where diplomacy comes in...
Simply state that it is your understanding that you are not required to provide such information and then, if he pushes or makes threats, advise him you would be happy to provide the information if he could confirm his authority to request it...
It may sound like evasion but you always have the right to request confirmation...