City of Strafford, Strafford Police sued for wrongful death

STRAFFORD, Mo. — The City of Strafford, the Strafford Police Department (SPD) and two SPD officers are being sued for wrongful death in Greene County Circuit Court.
According to online court dockets filed on Thursday, May 8, Lisa Glasser is suing as heir and next of friend of Taylor Diana, deceased.
The defendants listed in the suit are the City of Strafford, the SPD, and two SPD officers, Ruben Harlin and Jeff Ford.
The four-count petition — which is heavily redacted — states the incident occurred on Sept. 18, 2023.
Due to the document's redactions, the circumstances surrounding Diana's death are not immediately clear.
The first count of the petition alleges wrongful death due to negligence, saying the defendants owed a duty of care to Diana and the general public to operate their vehicles and conduct law enforcement activities in a safe and reasonable manner.
The petition's second counts say that as a direct and proximate result of SPD officers Harlin and Ford's 'unconstitutional actions' in violation of the Fourth Amendment, Diana suffered severe injuries leading to his death.
The third count alleges Diana suffered severe injuries leading to his death as a result of Harlin and Ford's unconstitutional actions regarding the Fourteenth Amendment.
Additionally, the fourth count alleges municipal liability in the wrongful death, saying that failures, policies, and customs — which are redacted in the document — amount to deliberate indifference to the rights of people who the SPD come into contact with.
Ozarks First has reached out to the plaintiff's attorneys, Brad Bradshaw and Joshua K. Roberts, for comment and have not received response as of this article's publishing.
Ozarks First reached out to the City of Strafford for comment but have not received comment, as well.
The lawsuit asks for an unspecified amount of damages that the court finds reasonable.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

11 hours ago

• Yahoo

Police are at my door. Do I need to answer? What to know if law enforcement knocks in Texas

Knock! Knock! Knock! There's a stranger at your doorstep. You rush to the peephole to see who's there. It's the police. They ask you to open the door. Your next move could be costly. Do you open the door, ask questions, or ignore them? Following what prosecutors have described as the "political assassination" of Minnesota State Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband — part of an attack that also injured Sen. John Hoffman and his wife — many Americans are now questioning their legal and practical options in response to the incident. The suspect in the case, Vance Boelter, 57, was dressed in a police officer's attire, complete with a black tactical vest, and carried a flashlight, as an officer would, according to an affidavit filed in federal court and written by Special Agent Terry Getsch of the FBI. Boelter was also driving an SUV equipped with a fake "POLICE" license plate and "law enforcement-style emergency lights," the affidavit said. "This is the police. Open the door," Boelter shouted outside at around 2 a.m. on June 14, according to Hoffman's family members, Getsch wrote in the affidavit. Here's what to know about answering the door for law enforcement in Texas. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution offers safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures, granting your home the greatest degree of protection. As a result, law enforcement officers cannot enter your residence without valid legal authority. If the police knock on your door, you're not obligated to answer or let them in. According to this tactic, known as a 'knock and talk,' is designed to begin a voluntary conversation, but your participation is entirely optional. Law enforcement knocking on your door can be intimidating. Most people's first inclination is to answer the door for them. However, that doesn't mean you have to. Here are five things to keep in mind if police officers knock on your door: You don't have to open the door unless they have a warrant. If officers don't present a search or arrest warrant, you're not legally obligated to let them in. Ask if they have a warrant — and see it. If they claim to have one, you can request to see it through a window or have them slide it under the door before opening up. Don't step outside your home or invite them in unless you want to. Once you open the door or step outside, you may unintentionally waive some of your Fourth Amendment protections. Stay calm and polite — but say little. You have the right to remain silent. You can simply say, 'I don't wish to speak without a lawyer,' and that's enough. If they don't have a warrant, they can't enter unless there's an emergency. This includes things like hearing screams, seeing someone in danger, or suspecting a crime is actively happening inside. According to the Texas Constitution Search & Seizures §9, the law says the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from all unreasonable seizures or searches, and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing them as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation. According to Texas law, there are situations of "exigent circumstances," also known as warrantless search and seizure in Texas. Under the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the law authorizes officers to enter homes without a warrant in exigent circumstances. Examples of this include: Protection of life (first aid, extracting children who appear to be in danger, protecting an undercover officer or informant). Protection of property (such as extinguishing a fire or stopping a burglary). Preventing destruction of evidence. Pursuing a fleeing felon ('hot pursuit'). According to the Texas District & County Attorneys Association, exigent circumstances can justify an officer's initial entry into a residence, especially when the goal is to help someone in danger or ensure public safety. However, once the immediate emergency is under control, officers are no longer permitted to continue searching without legal authority. A warrant or another specific exception must be in place to allow further examination of the premises, though officers may secure the location while obtaining one. Notably, the exigent circumstances rule does not create a blanket exception for murder scenes that would permit unrestricted searches; entry is only permitted to assist victims or locate an attacker. -USA TODAY Network Amanda Lee Myers contributed to this report. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: If police knock on your door, do you need to open? What Texas law says

Geek Wire

2 days ago

• Geek Wire

Seattle lawmakers approve GPS tracking tech for police pursuits

(GeekWire File Photo) The Seattle City Council voted 8-1 on Tuesday to authorize the Seattle Police Department's use of GPS tracking devices designed to reduce dangerous high-speed police chases. The approval of CB 120994 comes amid questions about the technology's effectiveness and concerns about expanding surveillance capabilities. The system, built by Virginia-based StarChase, uses compressed-air launchers mounted on police vehicles to fire battery-powered GPS tracking projectiles onto suspect vehicles during pursuits, theoretically enabling them to monitor the suspect's location remotely. The technology is being funded through a $250,000 state grant that will cover installation on 25 SPD vehicles and a two-year software subscription. Other police departments around Washington state and the U.S. have tested StarChase with varying levels of success. Last year the Oakland Police Department said it would stop using the technology. Privacy advocates, meanwhile, say the technology expands police power and could 'enable warrantless surveillance,' according to a statement from ACLU of Washington, as reported by The Urbanist. ACLU also said it was concerned about sharing of data and people's privacy. The bill describes the system's use as limited to vehicles where 'probable cause or reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime has been established.' The new law comes as Washington state has significantly loosened restrictions on police pursuits. Lawmakers last year passed Initiative 2113, which allows officers to chase suspects based on 'reasonable suspicion' of any crime, dramatically expanding from previous laws that limited pursuits to serious violent offenses. 'This could be an incredible move forward for our city in terms of public safety, because of the importance of the issue of pursuit,' councilmember Bob Kettle, who sponsored the legislation, said during Tuesday's meeting. Police pursuits have become an increasingly urgent public safety concern nationwide. A San Francisco Chronicle investigation last year found that police chases kill nearly two people a day in the U.S., while 551 bystanders were killed in chases from 2017 to 2022. 'This is about bringing a comprehensive approach to what we're doing,' Kettle said, noting the system would integrate with SPD's new Real Time Crime Center. SPD uses various other technology including automated license plate readers and CCTV cameras. A push from Mayor Bruce Harrell to implement controversial gunshot detection tech didn't move forward last year.

Yahoo

4 days ago

• Yahoo

Mississippi prisoner Richard Jordan takes to YouTube to plead for clemency before execution

In an effort to seek clemency for convicted murderer Richard Gerald Jordan, the Mississippi Office of Capital Post-Conviction Counsel released a video in which Jordan shares his story and asks the state not to execute him. The 79-year-old is scheduled to be executed on June 25. The U.S. Supreme Court will discuss on June 18 whether to grant Jordan an emergency stay of execution, and the Mississippi Southern District of U.S. District Court is expected to rule on whether to halt the execution at least temporarily as the court considers Jordan's objections to the state's three-drug method. Jordan has been on death row in Mississippi since 1977 for the kidnapping and murder of Edwina Marter, a Gulfport bank executive's wife. He also tried to collect a ransom after Marter was already dead. In the video, Jordan talks about his childhood and military service, saying he was a model citizen until he returned from Vietnam after serving three tours there during the war. He believes and experts shared in the video that Jordan likely suffered post-traumatic stress disorder from his time in Vietnam at the time he killed Marter. Jordan's brother Houston Jordan and sister Nordeen Jones talk about their older brother "Gerald" as a kind person and a role model for his younger siblings. The Jordans, they said, were a God-fearing family and spent a lot of time at church. "From the time we were small up, we went to church every Sunday morning, Sunday night and Wednesday night," Houston Jordan said. "We were quite active in the church." Others, including former schoolmates, ministers and a retired corrections officer, talk about Richard Jordan's willingness to help others. In the video, Richard Jordan is not asking the state to set him free. He admits his crime was wrong and has apologized for what he did. He is asking the state to commute his sentence to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Jordan's attorneys said at a hearing held Saturday at the Thad Cochran Federal Courthouse in Jackson that the state's preferred method of execution is tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment, which is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. Jordan also contends the execution method violates the Fourteenth Amendment, which speaks to due process and equal protection under the law. U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate asked the state and Jordan if they would be amenable to halting the execution if Jordan is deemed conscious after the first drug is administered and before the second has begun so the federal court could decide what should happen next, since it is not clear in Mississippi code what should happen if the first drug, a sedative, fails. Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch replied on Monday that there is a protocol. If the first consciousness test fails, Department of Corrections Commissioner Burl Cain can restart the process. If it fails a second time, the process would be halted until the state could decide what to do next. Wingate has not yet ruled on the matter. Lici Beveridge is a reporter for the Hattiesburg American and Clarion Ledger. Contact her at lbeveridge@ Follow her on X @licibev or Facebook at This article originally appeared on Mississippi Clarion Ledger: Richard Jordan pleads for clemency ahead of execution in Mississippi