Tulis objects to county paying deputy’s lawyer in false arrest case
CHATTANOOGA, Tenn., Friday, Dec. 11, 2024 — A journalist suing a Hamilton County deputy is raising objections to county taxpayers’ being on the hook for the cost of his defense, saying assistant county attorney Sharon Milling should recuse because of ethics rules barring her from conflict of interest.
Brandon Bennett arrested David Tulis on Nov. 22, 2023, for traveling in a green 1999 RAV4 with a damaged taillight. Tulis of Eagle Radio Network is suing Bennett, Sheriff Austin Garrett and Hamilton County with demands the county halt on-sight warrantless arrests that he calls “Redcoat warrants” violating Tenn. Const. art 1, sect. 7, and the warrants exceptions law.
The case in U.S. District Court is against Bennett in his personal capacity only, “in no way implicating the county,” Tulis says.
Bennett and Garrett “in their persons are going to be best served by separate legal representation so that they can have protection in their respective persons and property without the conflict of your representing them and the county,” Tulis tells Milling in e-mail correspondence. “Your office represents the interests of Hamilton County, which includes Messrs. Bennett and Garrett in their official acts. This service may not align with protection of their private interests that they, no doubt, have right to obtain.”
“You put yourself in a difficult position defending individuals for actions outside the scope of their official duties under law, as I allege. A false arrest, done without warrant, despite clear and well established law, redounds upon the man apart from uniform or office. The warrant requirement exists to avoid just such problem for deputies highlighted in the complaint.”
Tulis says “agreeing that taxpayers shall pay for these men’s private defense creates ethical conflicts for you in maintenance of your law license under Rule 8,” and that the Board of Professional Responsibility and the state corruption watchdog, Jason Mumpower, comptroller of the treasury, may have cause to investigate if Milling doesn’t disqualify herself from representing Garrett and Bennett in their personal capacity.
David’s nonprofit fighting and mercy ministry thanks for checks sent directly to c/o 10520 Brickhill Lane, Soddy-Daisy, TN 37379. Also, at GiveSendGo
I am researching this matter to brief it.
Public officials are trustees of all the people and have no power to waive the statute of limitation. *** As such trustees they have a much higher obligation imposed upon them, in the handling of the business of the county, than they would in handling their own personal affairs. In handling their personal affairs they would have a perfect right to waive the statute of limitation if they so desired but when they come to handling the rights of others and administering their affairs, taxing the people and spending money for others, they have a much higher duty and obligation imposed upon them than they do in handling their private personal matters.
Hicks v. Fox, 190 Tenn. 82, 87, 228 S.W.2d 68, 69–70 (1950)