California Police Brutality Lawyer Blog

Approximately 1,400 police officers removed Occupy Los Angeles protesters from a park near City Hall early this morning. Almost 300 people were arrested for failing to disperse. After officers dismantled the protesters' camp, city employees installed concrete barriers and chain link fences to wall off the park.

Citing health and safety concerns, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced last week all Occupy Los Angeles protesters would be evicted from the park by 12:01 am Monday. The deadline was extended by 48 hours in the hope that protesters would disperse. Police, many dressed in riot gear or biohazard suits, surrounded the park in the early morning hours and began arresting protesters in teams after an unlawful assembly was declared.

Bean bags were fired from shotguns at three protesters who refused to leave a makeshift tree house and officers used a platform lift to remove several men from trees. Los Angeles police officers are accused of tackling and wrestling a man with a camera to the ground on the steps of City Hall and at least one Occupy protester has alleged police beat protesters as they ran away from the encampment.

The Los Angeles eviction was largely non-violent when compared with other Occupy evictions across the country. Earlier this month, police wearing riot gear and wielding batons removed protesters from Occupy Wall Street encampments in New York City. In Oakland, police purportedly beat protesters with batons and put two different Iraq war veterans in the hospital on two separate occasions. One veteran suffered a fractured skull and another was placed in intensive care due to injuries to his spleen. In Seattle, police are alleged to have used pepper spray on a crowd of largely peaceful protesters including a pregnant teenager, a priest, and an 84-year-old woman who was hit in the face.

University police forces are also accused of using violence against Occupy protesters. Video footage shows police at the University of California, Berkeley campus hitting student protesters with batons as they attempted to set up an Occupy encampment. At U.C. Davis, several videos show university police nonchalantly spraying seated protesters in the face with pepper spray. Two officers and the university police chief were placed on paid administrative leave following the U.C. Davis incident.

Police violence and crowd control tactics being used against Occupy protesters across the country are meant to deter protesters from engaging in their constitutional rights. By controlling crowds with violence, police are effectively telling protesters to stay away or you too could be hit with a baton, pepper sprayed in the face or worse. This is an excessive, chilling use of force and it has no place in a free society.

Continue reading "Police Arrest Hundreds as Occupy Los Angeles Camp Evicted" »

University of California, Davis police used pepper spray on students who refused to move during a peaceful protest on campus last Friday. The students were seated on the U.C. Davis quad as part of the Occupy Wall Street movement which has swept across the nation in recent months. University police were on the quad after Chancellor Linda Katehi ordered the removal of tents erected by protesters in violation of university policy. After students refused to move, Officer John Pike began spraying them with pepper spray. Video footage of the incident quickly hit the internet.

According to Chancellor Katehi, police were instructed to remove the tents but not to forcibly remove protesters. She also stated university police were asked not to use force or make arrests. Instead, ten people were arrested and nine students hit with pepper spray were treated by medical staff on the scene. Two others were taken to a local hospital before being released.

Officer Pike allegedly claimed he sprayed students in an effort to make their protest disperse. Tear gas, however, is the generally recognized method for dispersing crowds because it is considered to be a non-debilitating irritant. Unlike tear gas, pepper spray includes a resin which will stick to eyes and other membranes. In fact, it is one of the most painful chemicals a person can come into contact with. Pepper spray causes difficulty breathing and makes it almost impossible to open your eyes. It can also cause permanent damage and even death.

Because pepper spray disorients and debilitates by making it impossible to see or move, it should not be used on peaceful protesters and should only be used to stop an attack. In 2006, Officer Pike was honored for tackling a hospital patient who threatened other officers with a pair of scissors. Ironically, he later stated he chose not to use pepper spray on the patient out of concern it might harm other patients or his fellow officers.

Why would a trained police officer choose to use a potentially harmful weapon to incapacitate protestors if he really only wanted them to move? If the goal of university police was to make the students move, tear gas would have been employed. It appears Officer Pike instead chose to hurt protesters for merely exercising their constitutional rights.

This was a case of university police operating on a university campus in response to a request to remove a few tents erected in the quad. None of the usual excuses for police misconduct were alleged to exist here. Police were not operating in a high crime area. No known gang members were involved. No shots were fired. It appears no one was even yelling at police. None of the officers were in fear for their lives. Video footage of the incident shows Officer Pike nonchalantly spraying students sitting with their heads down then attempting to move several protesters while they were incapacitated. Doing so meant that although incapacitated, protesters could still be charged with resisting arrest. There is simply no place for such abuse in any civilized society.

Following the incident, Pike and two other campus police officers, including the campus police chief, were placed on paid administrative leave and U.C. President Mark G. Yudof ordered a review of all university police training. Unfortunately, the police response to abuses such as this is generally "we are going to do retraining." Is retraining going to stop such misconduct in the future? Would the perpetrator of any other violent assault, such as domestic violence, merely be retrained?

Continue reading "U.C. Davis Police Pepper Spray Peaceful Student Protesters" »

A mentally ill man died Tuesday morning outside of a board-and-care facility in San Bernardino after police allegedly used a taser on him for resisting arrest. 29-year-old Jonathan White died while in police custody after officers responded to a call from the man's mother who told dispatchers White removed his clothes and began yelling uncontrollably. She purportedly warned law enforcement it would take multiple officers to control him.

After an unsuccessful attempt to take White into custody, police reportedly used pepper spray and a taser on the man in a failed effort to subdue him. Police then seemingly continued to struggle with White until more officers arrived. White, who according to his mother suffered from both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, stopped breathing while in police custody as paramedics evaluated him on the street. He was pronounced dead at St. Benardine Hospital and his death is currently under investigation by the coroner.

According to reports, White was allegedly yelling, throwing items and threatening residents but failed to actually harm anyone. Although his mother told reporters police never struck White, law enforcement officers purportedly used multiple forms of so called non-lethal weaponry on the man instead of waiting for back-up.

Police officers are expected to use force in some circumstances. Police officers are granted qualified immunity from liability so long as they act in good faith while engaging in their duties. Plaintiffs can overcome this presumption, however, by showing an officer's conduct was excessive and out of bounds. In Tennessee v. Garner, the United States Supreme Court restricted police use of deadly force to a limited set of circumstances. Although few restrictions exist with regard to the use of non-deadly force such as tasers, rubber bullets and pepper spray, their use may still be excessive.

Here, White's family may have a civil tort claim against police responding to the call or the city of San Bernardino. A civil tort claim allows victims of police brutality to seek monetary damages for a wrong that is not criminal in nature such as assault, battery, wrongful death, false arrest or negligence. Additionally, White's family may be able to bring a claim against police for violations of his constitutional rights. Section 42 U.S.C. 1983 provides citizens with the ability to sue police officers and other individuals acting under color of law for violating the Fourth Amendment constitutional protection from the use of excessive force. A successful constitutional claim can result in money damages as well.

A police officer who unnecessarily beats or assaults an individual may also subject to state criminal charges. An officer who violates California Penal Code Section 149 may be fined, imprisoned or both.

Continue reading "Mentally Ill Man Dies After Police Use Taser on Him" »

Los Angeles prosecutors have filed charges against a Los Angeles man for murder, their second attempt to secure a conviction. The man's first conviction was overturned by a federal judge in 2010. With the help of Los Angeles criminal attorney Okorie Okorocha, the man is asking the court to dismiss the new indictment and to allow him to move on with his life.

Los Angeles County prosecutors charged Paul Christian Blumberg with murder in 1997 after an investigation by the Los Angeles Police Department's Rampart Division. Based on evidence the Rampart officers blatantly manufactured and the perjury committed by Rampart officers, a jury convicted Blumberg of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Blumberg spent fourteen years in prison.

Blumberg filed a petition for habeas corpus relief in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in 2004. He asked the federal court to overturn the state court conviction based on due process violations and other serious irregularities in the evidence presented at his trial. The court found that the prosecution at the murder trial relied on inadmissible and possibly perjured testimony, and that the prosecution committed at least seven violations of the Brady rule. This rule, named for a 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case, states that due process requires prosecutors to provide criminal defendants with exculpatory evidence in prosecutors' possession. Such evidence would allow a defendant to impeach the credibility of prosecution witnesses or challenge other evidence presented by prosecutors.

After a recommendation by a magistrate judge to grant the habeas petition, U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder signed a judgment granting Blumberg's petition on February 7, 2010. She ordered Blumberg released from custody, unless a new trial began within ninety days. The prosecutors are still seeking to convict Blumberg who is being defended by Okorie Okorocha.

Blumberg and his attorney argue that this new prosecution cannot proceed because of the manifest injustice, not only to Blumberg himself but to all notions of fairness in the criminal justice system. They have filed several Motions to Dismiss the entire case on many grounds.They rely largely on the Chapman doctrine, named for a case decided in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2008. The doctrine holds that prosecutors who commit serious misconduct during a criminal trial should not get an opportunity to retry the case if the original conviction is reversed. Since a federal judge found sufficient evidence of crimes committed by the Los Angeles District Attorney who prosecuted the case and the Rampart police during the case, prosecutors should not get a second chance at this case, Blumberg and his attorney argue.

Continue reading "Federal Court: L.A. District Attorney's Office and Rampart Police engage in Misconduct" »