Six years later, Minneapolis Police settle brutality case with Andre Madison

Incident a rallying point against police abuse
"It is bittersweet," said Andre Madison, commenting on the recent settlement of his police brutality lawsuit against the City of Minneapolis.  Madison was the victim of a police shooting in 1996 stemming from a botched police raid on a North Minneapolis apartment. The suit charged that police violated Madison's civil rights by beating him and using racist insults after they shot him during the raid. In settling the case, the City admits no wrongdoing. Madison and the City settled the federal lawsuit for $15,000-plus, to include attorney's fees and costs. On November 8, 1996, Minneapolis police officers from the Emergency Response Unit (ERU) and Housing police carried out a raid based on evidence from an informant claimed Madison had purchased $5 worth of marijuana on the premises. During the course of the operation, police fired over 400 rounds of ammunition into the apartment building, shooting Officer Mark Lanasa in the process. Officers fired as they entered the apartment, hitting Madison two times -- once in the neck and in the arm. Madison's injuries were extensive.  Madison was subsequently convicted on charges of second degree assault against the police who shot him. His case garnered wide local attention and national exposure, and was at the center of a community protest campaign to win justice for him.[more ] and [more ]

• Madison fights to clear name. Madison has consistently maintained his innocence and said that he will continue to fight to clear himself. "Clearly, this civil case is significant, because it shows that there was no evidence that Andre fired a shotgun at the officers involved in the incident. The evidence shows that Officer Lanasa was hit by a bullet fired from another police officer," said Goins, commenting on the fact that much of the initial media coverage focused on the incorrect assumption that it was Madison who shot Officer Lanasa. "The concern I have is that if the prosecution knew this information, they should have informed Andre's lawyers," said Goins. "The prosecution has an obligation to disclose information which could be used to prove the defendant's innocence."