HomeMy WebLinkAbout6-14-13 Letter of Demand for Compensation from Jivaka Candappa,INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM °.
Anlvmvrs~rxA~lv>/ OFF1c1;
To: Risk Management 1'xox~: 530-538-7631
FAx: 530-538-7120
Cc: Sheriffs Office, County Counsel
From: Kathleen Sweeney, Assistant Clerk of the Board
Subject: Letter of Demand for Compensation from Ji~aka Candappa, Atty for J.Cale, i=. Reed,
and D.Thomas
Date: June 14, 2013
Attached is a letter of demand for compensation dated June 12, 2013 from Jivaka
Candappa, Atty for J.Cole, F. Reed, and D.Thomas. This letter was received by
regular mail on June 14, 2013.
JIVAKA CANDAPPA
ATTpRNEY AT LAW
June 12, 2013
Clerk, Butte County Board of Supervisors
25 County Center Drive, Suite 200
Oroville, CA 95965
180 Grand Avenue, Suite 700
Qa[cland, CA 94612
T 510 628-0300
F 510 62$ 0400
jcandappa@att.net
Re: Jordan Cole, Finesse Reed and David Thomas
Home invasion by Butte County Sheriff's Deputies an July 26, 2012
Dear SirlMadam:
This letter constitutes a letter of demand that you compensate my clients Jordan Cole,
Finesses Reed and David Thomas in the sum total of 80,000 for violating their civil rights in
connection with the home invasion incident of July 26, 2012.
On or about July 26, 2012, at approximately 1:15 a.m., officers of the Butte County
Sheriff s Office and the Chico Police Department {collectively "officers") forcibly entered the
residence of Jordan Cole and Finesse Reed. Mr. Cole, Ms. Reed and a friend, David Thomas,
(collectively "Plaintiffs") were held at gunpoint, handcuffed and detained for at least 45 minutes.
The officers did not have a warrant, were not given permission to enter by Plaintiffs, and there
were no exigent circumstances justifying the off cers' forced entry.
The officers first attempted to enter the residence in question by kicking down the front
door. The officers had their guns drawn when they attempted to force entry into the residence.
The officers threatened. to break the door down if the Plaintiffs did not open the door and used
profane language telling the Plaintiffs to "open the fucking door now." The officers attempted to
look into the residence by shining their flashlights through the windows.
One of the officers then struck the doar with an object breaking the glass window on the
door. The officers opened the door forcibly by reaching in through the broken window. One of
the officers alined his gun at Mr. Cale threatening to shoot hiin. Another officer shouted out to
his colleagues to "watch out for your crossfire" thus intimating that they were about to shoat at
the occupants.
The officers ordered the Plaintiffs to get on the ground. When Ms. Reed pleaded with the
officers to explain their unjustified display of deadly force, one of the officers threatened to shoot
-1-
Re. Jordan Cole, Finesse Reed and David Thomas
her. As all three occupants got down on the ground in fear for their lives, the officers rushed into
the residence with their guns drawn and handcuffed the Plaintiffs. The officers manhandled the
Plaintiffs and used excessive farce in seizing them.
A female deputy searched the residence using a canine. Other officers conducted a
highly invasive and unnecessary search of the residence. Furniture was upturned, drawers were
emptied, and cabinets were ransacked. The officers refused to provide their names and badge
numbers despite being asked for such information several times.
One of the officers falsely accused Mr. Cole of being on parole. The officers interrogated
Mr. Cole and Mr. Thomas and repeatedly attempted to coerce a confession from them that they
had engaged in criminal activity. Both Mr. Cole and Mr. Thomas denied the officers' false
accusations and resisted the officers' unlawful attempts at obtaining a false confession far some
purported crime. The officers finally relented and uncuffed the Plaintiffs approximately 45
minutes later.
Upon leaving the residence of Ms. Reed and Mr. Cole, two of the officers, believed to be
Butte County Sheriff s deputies, were overheard talking. These two officers agreed that they
would say that the occupants were found hiding in the bathrooam. The officers by their reckless
and lawless conduct, including their repeated threats to use deadly force, inflicted personal injury
on Ms. Reed, Mr. Cole and Mr. Thomas. The officers' actions also resulted in damage to
property.
THE SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES ARE LIABLE FOR
VIOLATING PLAINTIFFS' CIVIL RIGIIITS
The Officers' Home Invasion Violated Plaintiffs' Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
The United States Constitution mandates that, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
seized." U.S. Const. Amend. IV. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed the importance of
the warrant requirements particularly when police enter a personal residence without a warrant.
As explained thirty years ago in Payton v. New York 445 U.S. 573, 581 fn. 17 (1980):
At the core of the Fourth Amendment, whether in the context of a search or an
arrest, is the fundamental concept that any governmental intrusion into an
individual's home or expectation of privacy must be strictly circumscribed. To
achieve that end, the framers of the amendment interposed the warrant
requirement between the public and the police, reflecting their conviction that
the decision to enter a dwelling should not rest with the officer in the field, but
rather with a detached and disinterested Ma 's~ trate. Inasmuch as the purpose of
the Fourth Amendment is to guard against arbitrary governmental invasions of
-2-
Re. Jordan Cole, Finesse Reed and David Thomas
the home, the necessity of prior judicial approval should control any
contemplated entry, regardless of the purpose far which that entry is sought. By
definition, arrest entries must be included within the scope of the amendment,
for while such entries are for persons, not things, they are, nonetheless,
violations of privacy, the chief evil that the Fourth Amendment was designed to
deter.
{Emphasis added, internal citations omitted.)
The Supreme Court also explained that, "~ijt is a basic principle of Fourth Amendment
law that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable."
Payton, 445 U.S. at 586. See also United States v. Martinez, 406 F.3d 1160, 1163 {9th Cir.
2005}. The proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures is not to be taken lightly.
Exceptions to the warrant requirement are, "'narrow' and their boundaries are 'rigorously guarded'
to prevent any expansion that would unduly interfere with the sanctity of the home." United
States v. Stafford, 416 F.3d 1068, 1073 (9th Cir. 2005).
Here, it is undisputed that the Butte County Sheriff s deputies forcibly entered the
residence of Mr. Cole and Ms. Reed without a warrant. The seminal cases that uphold the strict
warrant requirements to enter a home to make to make an arrest were decided decades ago. The
Sheriff s deputies violated clearly established laws and precedent. Tt is also established in law
that Mr. Thomas, a guest in the residence of Mr. Cole and Ms. Reed, had a reasonable
expectation of privacy and enjoyed the same protections that the Fourth Amendment affords to
Mr. Cole and Ms. Reed. See Minnesota v. Olson. 495 U.S. 91, 98-100 (1990) and Espinosa v.
City and County of San Francisco, 598 F.3d 528, 533 (9th Cir. 2010). Further ,the Sheriffs
Office cannot prove that their warrantless entry meets the exceptions to the warrant requirement.
Hopkins v. Bonvincino, 573, F.3d 752, 764 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the Sheriff's deputies
are liable for the harm caused to Plaintiffs as a result of their unlawful home invasion and search
of the residence.
The Sheriffs ]Deputies are Liable for Seizn~_lPla_i__ntiffs witf_hout a Warrant.
A person is seized under the Fourth Amendment when an officer accosts the individual
and restrains his or her freedom to walk away. Terry v.Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 (1967). A detention
must be supported by a particularized and objective basis that the detainee was or is about to be
engaged in criminal activity. U.S v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18 (19$8}. The articulated facts
must, therefore, be more than the mere subjective impressions of a particular officer. United
States v. Hernandez-Alvarado, 891 F.2d 1414, 1416 (9th Cir. 1989). Probable cause to arrest
exists "where the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge and of which they have
reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient io themselves to warrant a man of reasonable
caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed." Brinegar v. United States,
338 U.S. 160, 175-76 (1949). Probable cause to arrest is dependent on the facts and
-3-
Re. Jordan Cole, Finesse Reed and David Thomas
circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge at the time of the arrest. Beck v. Ohio,
379 U.S. 89, 91 (19b4).
Here, the deputies did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to seize Plaintiffs
with or without a warrant. Plaintiffs were not suspected of involvement in any criminal activity.
The deputies without any objective reasonable justification invaded Plaintiffs' home and seized
them at gun point. The deputies are liable to Plaintiffs.
The De uties are Liable for iJsin Excessive Force.
A claim of excessive force against law enforcement officers in the course of an
investigatory stop, detention, azxest or other seizure must be analyzed under the Fourth
Amendment's standard of objective reasonableness. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 3$6, 395
(19$9). The reasonableness of the force used in connection with a particular seizure is
determined by a careful balancing of the nature and quality of the intrusion of the individual's
Fourth Amendment rights against the countervailing government interests at stake. Deorle v.
Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272, 1279 {9th Cir. 2001). The question therefore is not whether force
was necessary to accomplish a legitimate police objective, but whether the force used was
reasonable in light of all the relevant circumstances. Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 6$9, 700
{9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, in addition to looking at the severity of the crime in question,
evidence as to whether the subject posed a danger to the police officers, resisted or attempted to
resist arrest, and the availability of alternative methods of apprehending the subject would be
relevant factors. Id. at 700-04.
Here, the deputies' use of force was arbitrary and capricious. Plaintiffs did not pose a
threat to the deputies. The deputies' gratuitous use of force, including threats to shoot Plaintiffs
violated Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights.
The De uties are Liable for Violatin Civil Code 52.1
California Civil Code § 52.1 provides a private right of action far damages against any
person who "interferes" or "attempts to interfere by threats, intimidation, or coercion," with the
exercise or enjoyment of rights under California or federal law. The California Supreme Court
has held that § 52.1 requires "an attempted or completed act of interference with a legal right,
accompanied by a form ofcoercion." Jones a Kmart Corp., 17 Ca1.4th 329, 334 (199$}. Only
these express elements are necessary to sustain a claim under ~ 52.1.
Here, it is undisputed that Plaintiffs' rights under federal and California law were
interfered with by "threats, intimidation, or coercion." The deputies used force, threats,
intimidation, and coercion, to deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights to be secure against
unreasonable search and seizure. The deputies forcibly entered the residence of Mr. Cole and
Ms. Reed, threatened to shoat Plaintiffs, and handcuffed them at gun point.
-4-
Re. Jordan Cole, Finesse Reed and David Thomas
The County is Vicariously Liable Under State Law and will be Subject to Liabili
far Municipal and Supervisor Liability Under Federal Law.
Section 815.2 of the California Governz~nent Code provides in pertinent part that a "public
entity is Liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public
entity within the scope of his employment if the act or a~nission would ...have given rise to a
cause of action against that employee or his personal representative." The official legislative
committee comments to that section explain that:
it will not be necessary in every case to identify the particular employee upon
whose act the liability of the public entity is to be predicated. A11 that will be
necessary will be to show that some employee of the public entity tartiously
inflicted the injury in the scope of his employment under circumstances where
he would be personally liable.
Accordingly, pursuant to section 815.2, the Butte County Sheriff s Office and the County
of Butte are vicariously liable far the deputies' unlawful actions. Further, the County and the
Sheriff maybe held liable far violations of 42 U.S.C. ~ 1983 for pattern and practice violations,
failure to train, and under a theory of ratification.
PLAINTIFFS' OFFER TO SETTLE
Kindly note that the Plaintiffs' offer to settle their claims against the County and its
officers and employees will remain open through July 12, 2013. If the County does not settle
Plaintiffs' claims in the sum total of $80,000, Plaintiffs will file suit in federal court and seek the
full value of their dazuages, including triple damages and statutory penalties against each officer
in the sum of $25,000 pursuant to Civil Code § 52.1. Plaintiffs will also seek the full value of
their attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Civil Code § 52.1. Plaintiffs will not
compromise their claims for compensatory damages, statutory penalties, attorney fees, and costs
after filing suit.
I hope you understand that Plaintiffs' offer to settle is imminently reasonable and the
County and its employees will incur substantial costs over and beyond the demand of $80,000
should this matter proceed to litigation. Accordingly, I trust that you will give this matter your
immediate attention and settle Plaintiffs' demand within the next 30 days.
Sincerely,
Ji andappa
Attorney for Jordan Cale, Finesse Reed
and David Thomas
cc: Jerry W. Smith, Butte County Sheriff
Bruce Alpert, County Counsel
-5-