By Robert J. Hansen | OBSERVER Staff Writer
Almost five years to the day that then-Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd, protesters who sought accountability from the Sacramento Police Department for its handling of the subsequent protests were denied May 20 by a federal judge.
The six plaintiffs filed the lawsuit against Sacramento police seeking monetary compensation and permanent injunctive relief for the injuries they sustained during the demonstrations and their loss of civil rights under the first, fourth and fourteenth amendments. They claimed the department’s customs and practices, as well as its failure to properly train and discipline its police officers led to the violation of their constitutional rights.
The relief, if granted, would have required a massive overhaul of police procedures and response to protests. Among other changes, it would have prohibited police from issuing dispersal orders or making arrests at protests unless there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. It would have given the Office of Public Safety Accountability full concurrent investigatory authority over complaints involving the police department.
In a private settlement prior to trial last month, plaintiffs were awarded $350,000 for injuries suffered during the protests at the hands of police.
U.S. Senior District Judge John Mendez ruled that little to no evidence was introduced at trial that supported the plaintiffs’ argument that there is a substantial risk that the harm they suffered during the May 2020 protests will occur going forward.
“Since these protests in 2020, the evidence shows that the SPD has made numerous significant modifications and changes to its policies and practices concerning the use of less lethal force during public protests,” Judge Mendez wrote in his ruling. “Plaintiffs did not introduce any evidence of allegedly unconstitutional conduct by SPD during public protests over the past five years from which this court could infer or conclude that the permanent injunctive relief sought was necessary.”
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of San Francisco, the firm that represented the plaintiffs, said in a statement that despite being denied the injunction, the court’s condemnation of the department’s policy and practice of constitutional violations, its widespread failure to discipline officers and its failure to train officers is a rare and important condemnation of systemic police misconduct that will resonate far beyond this case.
“We are disappointed that the court did not grant injunctive relief to require changes to Sacramento police department policies, and we continue to believe it is warranted due to its history of using violence to suppress calls for police accountability, and its flagrant disregard of the law and its own policies in the past,” the statement from the attorneys read. “This decision, as well as the $350,000 the City of Sacramento already paid to the plaintiffs who were injured by police, sends a clear message that Sacramento’s actions were unconstitutional in the past, and may not be repeated in the future. We urge the city and SPD to follow the law, engage in true reform of its practices, and rebuild trust with the community.”
The court failed to grant such relief in part based on policy changes that likely would not have occurred without lawsuits like this one and the public outcry that prompted the legislature to impose greater restrictions on all police departments after 2020, the plaintiffs’ attorneys added.
The George Floyd protests in Sacramento occurred between May 26 and June 3, 2020, at several locations, including police headquarters on Freeport Boulevard; 12th Street and the entrance to Highway 99; the area around the Capitol; Cesar Chavez Park on 10th Street; the Sacramento County Main Jail on Sixth and I streets; the entrance to Highway 5 near Old Sacramento; and on J Street between 19th and 21st streets.
The six plaintiffs were harmed by what are described as “less lethal weapons,” including impact munitions, chemical agents, baton strikes, and personal body weapons used by police at protests, according to the ruling.
“The evidence shows that police used force against plaintiffs multiple times, sometimes in rapid succession,” the court wrote.
The court added that the protesters were not engaged in significant criminal activity when they were subjected to officers’ use of force and that it is unreasonable to use less lethal force, including impact munitions and chemical agents, against individuals “who were suspected of only minor criminal activity” or who “engaged in passive resistance.”
In an interview before the ruling, Marissa Hatton, an attorney for the plaintiffs, noted that “just because they’re ‘less lethal’ doesn’t mean that they’re not lethal.”
Hatton said at trial that one protester who was shot in the head testified that she felt like a target in the video game “Call of Duty.”
“This is obviously not how we want police treating civilians, especially in a city that really touts itself as a place for First Amendment expression, as the state capital,” Hatton said. “But I think the reality is that tolerance for free expression ends when the expression starts to become about police accountability.”
Hatton also was concerned about how police treated counterprotesters despite their displays of weapons and, in some cases, violence against racial justice protesters.
She said it’s not a coincidence that police treat racial justice protesters so violently because they view it as a referendum on policing itself.
“They really activate when the subject matter is racial justice or police accountability,” Hatton said. “We played videos at trial that quite literally show police standing around and watching one of our clients being pulled to the ground and beaten by Proud Boys and they just did nothing.”
A police spokesperson referred The Observer to the city attorney’s office for comment regarding the outcome of the case. The City was pleased that the judge denied the plaintiffs’ injunctive relief claims.
“In essence, the court agreed with the city that both the protests at issue were a product of aggravated and unforeseen circumstances, and that SPD does not currently have a pattern and practice of indiscriminately utilizing less lethal munitions at large scale events,” a spokesperson for the city said in an email.
Sean Richmond, senior deputy city attorney for Sacramento, told Courthouse News that the city acknowledged some of its officers didn’t comport themselves properly, pointing to the monetary settlement, but that seeking judicial oversight of future police action went too far.
“I think the court realized there was some overreach in the relief requested here,” Richmond told Courthouse News. “The city appreciates the ruling.”