California Criminal Lawyer Blog

For John Stephens, the injuries have healed, but the memories have yet to fade.

Click HERE to see the video of the news story.

"I remember thinking, 'What is going on here?'" said Stephens, a retired school bus driver and former Navy sailor.

In July 2010, Stephens was summoned to jury at the downtown courthouse. He walked into the courthouse with his wife, and then placed his watch in the basket as he prepared to go through a security checkpoint.

However, Stephens' implants from knee surgery set off the metal detector, so a deputy took him aside and used a hand-held to inspect him. At that point, Stephens said someone grabbed his belongings.

"I looked over and saw this gentleman with my watch and belt, and I said, 'Hey,'" said Stephens.

Stephens' wife, Elizabeth, said, "He never moved his arms down from that position."

Stephens never finished his sentence because he said a deputy surprised him.

"Next thing I knew I was on the floor and the guy was twisting my arm to the point of breaking it … I felt his knee coming into me … next thing I know I'm on the ground. There were three of them twisting every way they could," Stephens told 10News.

The incident left him upset and in pain.

"One arm was bruised and purple for three to four weeks," said Stephens.

Stephens was also handcuffed and under arrest for obstruction. Charges were never filed, but Stephens filed a civil suit against San Diego County for the abuse inflicted on him by deputies and false arrest.

"He clearly was not a danger to anyone. This is the worst case of abuse by [a] sheriff's deputy at the courthouse," said Stephens' lawyer, Civil Rights Attorney Mary Frances Prevost.

Elizabeth Stephens added, "They could have done irreparable damage. It's not right, it's not right."

Stephens said he thought the right thing was going to jury duty. He's not so sure anymore.

"It was astounding. I came down for this? All I'm trying to do is go to jury duty," Stephens said.

County attorneys declined to comment due to pending litigation.

Stephens' wife tracked down the man who took her husband's watch and other items, and was able to get the items back. The man was not charged with theft.

California Civil Rights Attorney Prevost said she believes there is surveillance tape, but has yet to obtain it.

Continue reading "SAN DIEGO CIVIL RIGHTS: JUROR ASSAULTED/ARRESTED BY COURTHOUSE DEPUTY" »

YES, WE DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO POLICE MISCONDUCT DISCOVERY OF COMPLAINTS MADE AFTER THE ARREST

The defendant was convicted. He appealed and eventually got federal habeas relief. Back in the trial court, the defendant moved for Pitchess (11 Cal.3d 531) discovery against the officers.

The trial court granted the motion, but denied any discovery of complaints made against the officers after the date of the defendant's arrest. Why on this earth judges consistently make up rules to protect the police is beyond me. Yes, I know they all run on "Law Enforcement's Choice" tickets for re-election. But a fourth grader would have enough sense to have granted this public defender's request. I mean, C'mon.

The California Court of Appeal says this is wrong. The defense is entitled to discovery of such complaints, on a showing of good cause.

Blumberg v. Superior Court; 2011 DJ DAR 11477; DJ, 8/1/11; C/A 2nd,
Div. 5

Continue reading "CALIFORNIA POLICE MISCONDUCT: RIGHT TO PITCHESS DISCOVERY OF COMPLAINTS MADE AFTER THE ARREST" »

In a class-action dispute concerning whether Government Code section 910 allows taxpayers to file a class action claim against a municipal governmental entity for the refund of local taxes, judgment of the court of appeals affirming trial court's denial of class certification is reversed where, consistent with City of San Jose v. Superior Court, class claims for tax refunds against a local governmental entity are permissible under Section 910 in the absence of a specific tax refund procedure set forth in an applicable governing claims statute.

Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, No. S174507

Continue reading "LAW OFFICES OF MARY PREVOST; CLASS ACTION CERTIFIED FOR CITIZENS' TAX SUIT AGAINST GOVERNMENT" »

In 2008 I won a $400,000 settlement for a teenager who was beaten to the ground in his own driveway until he was unconscious. The assailant was a Chula Vista Police Officer. See, http://www.californiacriminallawyerblog.com/cgi-bin/mt.cgi?__mode=view&_type=entry&id=8472&blog_id=76.

Last year, CVPD lost a $2 million lawsuit. Why? It's officers attacked a federal agent.

Now, another Chula Vista Police officer is on the hot spot. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/jul/20/top-navy-surgeon-files-lawsuit-against-chula-vista/

See, also http://www.10news.com/news/28554452/detail.html

Here we have a § 1983 (civil rights) case where a vendor selling goods to the city publicly criticized the city’s procurement practices. He claimed city officials retaliated against him by not giving him some bids and contracts. MSJ granted and reversed.

Here's the holding:

[1] Complaints of government misusing funds is squarely protected by the First Amendment. A question of fact remains whether any causal relationship between Plaintiff's criticism and losing bids, and whether Plaintiff suffered any adverse action. [2] Government act of retaliation need not be severe to qualify as an adverse action sufficient to state a 1983 claim.

Marez v Bassett, 595 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2010)

This is a § 1983 civil rights case regarding "overdetention" of jail inmates.

Here, the Court held that overdetention of 27 hours was not a matter of deliberate indifference (See, Monell 436 U.S. 691) where administrative processing led to 43 overdetentions and 50,957 timely releases, and where new procedures had ‘dramatically decreased’ overdetentions. MSJ properly granted. Law of case did not prevent MSJ where prior appellate opinion dealt with related issues, not issue presented on MSJ [subtle distinction].

Mortimer v Baca, 594 F.3d 714 (9th Cir. 2010)

This is a § 1983 class action for claimed sheriff’s overdetention and officers’ efforts to procure involuntary (coerced) waiver of civil rights claims. Here's how the court held on the causes of action:

[1] No showing of a practice or policy of overdetaining inmates and thus no official capacity liability. [2] No freestanding right against coercive waivers, and even were there so, no clearly established right; thus qualified immunity. [3] No evidence of officers’ agreeing to overdetention and conspiracy claim fails. [4] RICO claim fails for showing of business- or property-interest harm.

Avalos v Baca, 596 F.3d 583 (9th Cir. 2010)

This was a § 1983 police excessive force & wrongful death judgment for plaintiff $1.00. This is what we read about in law school, but never think we will see. Well, this Plaintiff saw it. Bummer.

But Plaintiff's lawyer claimed $700K attorney fees. The trial court reduced the fees to to $118,000 in view of the limited success. The Court held that the fee award was properly reduced, but otherwise affirmed on the Defendant's appeal.

The factors the court considered in setting the fee aware were: (a) amount of damages sought & recovered, (b) Legal issue’s significance, (c) public goal.
Mahach-Watkins v Depee, 593 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2010) (Fletcher)

Crowe v County of San Diego,593 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2010)

This was a case of § 1983 actions brought against city & county officers, psychologist, prosecutors et al, for criminal prosecutions of two teenager brothers. It is a lengthy, 65-headnote opinion. Here goes:

[1] Fifth amendment self-incrimination claim stated where coerced statements introduced during preliminary hearings. No qualified immunity since coerced confessions are subject to a clearly established right.

[2] Substantive due process claim stated for interrogation that “shocks the conscience.”

[3] Because reasonable officer could believe he had probable cause for arrests as several facts consistent with the crime existed, therefore qualifiedly immune.

[4] Search warrants: Second supported by probable cause. First lacked probable cause (material misrepresentations and omissions) but the circumstances surrounding do not conclusively demonstrate deliberate falsification or reckless disregard for the truth. Officers therefore have qualified immunity. (Okay, hold on here. Material misrepresentations and omissions doesn't rise to the level of reckless disregard? This is what they use (both prosecutors and cops) to "get away" with it....Oi gevelt)

[5] Strip searches possibly violations for lack of showing consent (for one) and noncoerced consents (for others).

[6] Drawing blood samples from two nonsuspects to help prove suspects’ involvement is not probable cause and violated clearly established law.

[7] Private psychologist consulted by police to formulate interrogation technique; § 1983 conspiracy claim stated and not immune. But detective’s mere participation in interrogation not enough to state conspiracy claim.

[8] § 1983 familial companionship claim stated for using coerced confessions as basis of continued incarceration.

9] “Defamation-plus” § 1983 claim against deputy DA for saying boys or other third parties may have committed murder is not enough to be “provably false” factual statement.

[10] Psychologist’s comparisons of boy to Charles Manson is figurative rhetoric that reasonable minds would not take to be a verifiable fact, and not defamatory.

[11] Monell § 1983 claims city’s policy is violation fails where no showing city’s policies permit or encourage coerced confessions.

San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón said Friday that his office has pulled out of the investigation into whether San Francisco police officers conducted illegal raids and is handing over the case to the U.S. Justice Department.

Click HERE for original story.

The former police chief, who was named district attorney in January, said he had received unspecified new information Friday that meant his office was "not equipped" to investigate whether plainclothes officers at Southern Station had conducted improper searches and lied about them in police reports.

Four videotapes taken in residential hotels have recently surfaced that contradicted officers' descriptions in their reports on drug raids. The FBI is already investigating the matter, and until Friday, prosecutors had an independent probe under way.

"We do not have the resources that are necessary to do this right," Gascón said. "We believe the case will be better served if given to the U.S. Justice Department."

Gascón said he will let Justice Department officials decide whether federal charges should be filed against officers. He would not dismiss the possibility that the district attorney's office would file state charges if federal prosecutors do not pursue a case.

Earlier this week, Gascón announced that his office had scuttled a total of 57 prosecutions connected to the involved officers. The Police Department says it has ordered refresher training for about 100 undercover officers posted at the city's district stations.

At a hastily arranged news conference Friday, Gascón repeatedly denied that his office was pulling out of the probe because of any concerns about conflict of interest.

"This has nothing to do with a conflict in any way or shape," said Gascón, who was police chief when some of the raids took place. "This has to do with the complexity of the case."

Interim Police Chief Jeff Godown said the Police Department was continuing criminal and internal probes into the case.

Continue reading "CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL DEFENSE: FEDS TAKE OVER SAN FRANCISO POLICE SCANDAL" »

by Teri Sforza, Register staff writer

Perhaps the question is not if the county will settle this lawsuit, but when, and for how much…?

It’s not going well when a federal judge writes, “a reasonable jury could conclude that the defendant officers used excessive force against Ms. White …. Ms. White was not under suspicion of having committed any crime. Nor were the officers present to investigate Ms. White. Indeed, the officers were standing on Ms. White’s property without having obtained a warrant ….”

OUCH

We told you recently about the case involving an Old English sheep dog, a woman named Toy (who suffered a nasty black eye), and an Orange County Sheriff’s deputy who was arrested for DUI after two crashes within a half-hour.

Mission Viejo paid $24,000 to make this suit go away – but it is still grinding against former Deputy Allan James Waters’ bosses, the County of Orange and the Sheriff’s Department, racking up legal bills.

(Waters, by the way, is no longer a deputy. And shortly after he turned in his uniform, he was arrested for DUI and on suspicion of being a drug dealer who traded fake drugs and cash in exchange for real prescription drugs. The District Attorney’s Office said he tried to pull a fast one by using a white powder instead of cocaine. Oops.)

The county has settled one other case involving Deputy Waters for $32,000.

DOG GONE

On July 7, 2007, Toy Whitewas home in Mission Viejo with her husband Steve and their three Old English sheep dogs. A woman entered the property without permission, the suit says - and one of the dogs bit her.

That evening, there was a knock at the Whites’ door. They opened it, and there stood four OC sheriff’s deputies and a Mission Viejo animal control officer. They entered the house without the Whites’ consent – and without a warrant - demanding that the dog be surrendered for a 10-day quarantine.

Mission Viejo law allows for in-home quarantine when a bite happens during trespassing on private property. The Whites said they wanted to do that instead.

And here, according to the suit filed in federal court, is where things got dicey. The deputies became threatening and said, “Just give up the dog,” the suit says.

Toy White asked the officers to leave her house; they would continue the discussion outside. As she placed her hand on the door handle, “she was violently grabbed and thrown face first onto the tile floor, without warning or provocation, by (deputies) Macias and Waters,” the suit says. She was then cuffed tightly, arrested, and hauled off to jail.

The dog, meanwhile, was taken into custody as well. The dog was returned the following day, when the city realized its error; but White was arrested for battery on an officer and resisting arrest. The District Attorney’s office did not proceed, however, determining that the officers had no authority to enter the house, and no legal right to remove the dog, the suit says.

Deputies named, along with Waters, are J. Macias, S. Crivelli and T. Jansen, along with animal control officer H. Holmes. They maintain that White was threatening, advanced toward the deputies and resisted arrest.

SAYS THE JUDGE

The suit is in federal court, before Judge David O. Carter. He made the comments we’re quoting in an order granting in part, and denying in part, the county’s motion for summary judgment (a determination made by the court without a full trial).

Writes Carter: “…it remains a disputed issue of material fact as to whether Ms. White made any contact with the police officers. Even if Ms. White made such contact, the officers would only be entitled to use the force necessary in the circumstances, which was minimal since the officers concede that Ms. White was in the office of closing the front door to Plaintiffs’ residence and thereby imposing a physical barrier between herself and the officers.

“To the extent the officers now claim it was necessary to physically restrain Ms. White in order to effectively combat the harm alleged to have been caused by the Plaintiffs’ dog, the Court is unconvinced. It is for a jury to determine whether Ms. White’s restraint was a reasonable response to the threat that a dog inside Plaintiffs’ home posed a public safety risk. But the mere fact that Ms. White resisted the officers’ attempts to enter her residence without a warrant is far from a legitimate basis for the officers’ actions on July 7, 2007.”

The Whites’ attorney, Mary Frances Prevost, is understandably encouraged. She doesn’t completely understand why the county doesn’t cut its losses here, but postulates that it’s the way the system is set up. Lawyers make more money when cases go to trial, she says. Lawyers make less money when cases settle.

[california civil rights attorney, san diego civil rights attorney, orange county civil rights attorney, riverside civil rights attorney, imperial county civil rights attorney, san francisco civil rights attorney, ventura vicil rights attorney, santa barbara civil rights attorney]

Continue reading "CALIFORNIA CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY - JUDGE SAYS: ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF DEPUTIES MAY HAVE USED EXCESSIVE FORCE" »

I have been posting on this issue for a long time. And it's been too long since the County of Orange decided not to settle this horrible case.

Instead, the County of Orange is protecting a dirty cop who crashed in a DUI accident, beat another person and settled the case, sold "bunk" (fake drugs) to get money, and beat a 5'2" cosmetics representative to the ground in her own home.

Well, when the firm of Sullivan & Ballog, who are defending the rogue cops in this case, tried to get the case kicked out of court, the judge said "No!"

Here's the article:

http://taxdollars.ocregister.com/2010/07/12/officers-used-excessive-force-ruling-suggests/60459/

On December 27, 2005, Ron Capizzi filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the County of Orange and a bunch of rogue Orange County deputy sheriffs.

After three grueling years of all out litigation, including the taking of every deposition possible at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars in litigations costs, the case finally settled on the eve of trial for $38,000 on December 15, 2008.

Three years of litigation. Tens of thousands of dollars in litigation costs. Why didn't this case settle sooner?

The answer is easy. Counties and cities hire outside counsel to represent them in such cases. It is not valuable to a private civil law firm to settle a case early. The interest of the law firm is to bill the county for the largest amount possible. Settling the case early is a conflict. The best interest of the county is generally not the best interest of the law firm.

What happened in the Capizzi case is typical of outside law firms billing the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars in costs and attorney fees for cases that should be handled quickly and settled immediately. I suspect, and will soon find out, that the Santa Ana law firm of Sullivan & Ballog billed more than 100,000 in costs and fees to the County of Orange over those three years. It's public record.

And what did the county get out of it? A big bill. The county and it's cops got thrown under the bus. After all that time, they finally gave money to the Plaintiff. But they gave much, much more money to the attorney who defended him. The cops didn't win. The County didn't win. The plaintiff and his attorney didn't win. But Santa Ana law firm Sullivan & Ballog won big.

Now, it's happening again. The same Santa Ana lawfirm is billing, billing, billing on the case of Toy White v. County of Orange. (A separate law firm also just settled a different case by a different lawfirm against Deputy Allan Waters, one of the cops in the White case on the even of trial. Click HERE for the story. We'll be getting those costs and fees, too).

You will remember that Toy White is the 5'1" cosmetics rep who was brutally beaten to the ground when the dogcatcher and a band of four - count 'em FOUR - heavily armed Orange County deputy sheriff's burst into her house to take her dog that had been involved in a minor bite. They didn't have the right. They had no warrant. There was no legal cause to bust into her house and slam her to the floor, other than what they made up in their reports to justifies their actions. See HERE for story in the Orange County Register.

The City of Mission Viejo, who employed the dogcatcher, settled the case. But it's not amazing that the C ounty refuses to take resposibility for it's rogue bunch of brutal cops.

Now, the same firm that ripped off the County of Orange, the Orange County Sheriff's Department and the cops in the Capizzi case to the tune of more than $100,000 in litigation costs and attorney fees, is refusing to made any good faith settlement offers in the Toy White case. Is this another Capizzi case? Uh, we think so.

Same lead attorney - Al Ballog. Same law firm - Sullivan & Ballog.

I am preparing a California Public Records Act request to various cities and counties to get the exact costs of litigation and attorney fees on a series of cases, like Capizzi and White.

What you will see - because I've obtained the litigation cost bills and attorney fees billed to public entities in the past - is a pattern and practice of out-of-control billing by outside firms that will make you more ill than when you first heard about the $1,500 toilet seat on Airforce I.

Continue reading "WHAT COST TO DEFEND DIRTY COPS? ORANGE COUNTY TAXPAYERS ARE GETTING RIPPED OFF. " »

May 12, 2010:

There is more and more evidence coming out that the University of San Diego only drug tested it's African American athletes, and left the white athletes along.

A lawsuit, claiming racial profiling and racial discrimination, has been filed on behalf of former USD point guard Trumaine Jackson stemming out of two events in which he was wrongfully accused of a crime. Click HERE for story and more links.

But it seems that the harrassment of African American students at USD is more pervasive and systematic than originally thought.

Does USD have a policy of only drug testing its African American athletes? What say you?

Continue reading "CALIFORNIA CIVIL RIGHTS LAWYER: DOES USD DRUG TEST ONLY BLACK ATHLETES?" »

In 2008, University of San Diego point guard Trumaine Johnson was at the top of his game. He led the USD Torero's basketball team to the NCAA playoffs under new coach Bill Grier.

But Johnson's tenure at USD was marked with significant instances of racial discrimination. On March 9, 2010, Johnson filed suit against USD, Coach Grier, and the San Diego Police Department (and others) for racial profiing/racial discrimination based on two instances where Johnson was wrongfully accused of crimes. After the second instance, in which Johnson was tacked, kneed in the back, pepper sprayed and arrested for a crime he did not commit and a crime the prosecutors declined to prosecute, he was let go from the Toreros.

For the San Diego City Beat articles, click HERE.

For the San Diego Union Tribune article, click HERE:

FOUR YEAR SUSPENSION FOR PROSECUTOR UPHELD.

A former Santa Clara County deputy district attorney abused his office and violated the due process rights of several criminal defendants, a State Bar Court review panel ruled last month, and should therefore lose his law license for four years.

Finding that BENJAMIN THOMAS FIELD [#168197] “disregarded prosecutorial accountability in favor of winning cases,” the three-judge panel upheld the recommendation of hearing Judge Pat McElroy and also urged that Field be given five years of probation.

The state Supreme Court must rule on the recommendation before it takes effect.

Field, 45, a career prosecutor and one-time rising star in the DA’s office, originally was charged with 25 counts of misconduct in four cases he prosecuted. The bar court dismissed several charges as duplicative.

“Although our system of administering justice is adversarial in nature and prosecutors must be zealous advocates in prosecuting their cases, it cannot be at the cost of justice,” wrote Judge Catherine Purcell, who was joined in the decision by Judges JoAnn Remke and Judith Epstein.

“Field lost sight of this goal,” Purcell continued, “ … and in doing so, he disregarded the foundation from which any prosecutor’s authority flows — ‘The first, best and most effective shield against injustice for an individual accused … must be found … in the integrity of the prosecutor.’”

The judges found that Field’s misconduct began shortly after his 1993 admission to the bar and spanned 10 years. The allegations stemmed from four cases and charged:

Field obtained a dental examination of a minor accused of sexual assault in violation of a court order. He was attempting to try the youth, who claimed to be 13, as an adult. A juvenile court judge suppressed the evidence obtained in the examination.
In a murder case, Field intentionally withheld a defendant’s statement favorable to co-defendants. As a result, the judge dismissed a 25-year gun enhancement against one of the co-defendants.
He made an improper closing argument in a sexually violent predator (SVP) case, which an appellate court described as “deceptive and reprehensible.” The court reversed a judgment committing the man as an SVP.
He intentionally withheld a witness’ statement that was favorable to the defense in a 2003 habeas corpus proceeding involving a sexual assault. The judge found that he committed a discovery violation.
In that matter, the review panel found that Field’s misconduct escalated over time and constituted “a calculated scheme to hide evidence favorable to the defense.”

Two men who were convicted of sexual assault had filed petitions for writ of habeas corpus and provided a declaration by a witness who claimed the 15-year-old victim had made false accusations because she missed curfew.

Field’s investigator found and interviewed the witness but did not notify the defense. In addition, he instructed his investigator to prepare a misleading declaration and filed it with the court, filed a statement with the court implying he did not know the witness’ whereabouts, and then waited five months before disclosing the interview, only after opposing counsel learned of the interview and had filed a motion alleging prosecutorial misconduct.

Finally, the court concluded, Field urged the court to proceed with the habeas hearing without the witness.

In the same case, Field obtained five search warrants despite the judge’s doubts about his tactics. Indeed, when Field asked the judge what to do if he needed a warrant in an emergency, the judge testified, “I looked him right in the eye and I said, ‘Ben, just don’t do it.’” Five days later, Field obtained a search warrant in another state without notifying the habeas judge.

The review panel found the Field committed several acts of moral turpitude, and did not obey a court order or follow the law. Field admitted to poor judgment and viewing his discovery obligations too narrowly, and self-reported the finding of prosecutorial misconduct to the bar.

Throughout the trial before Judge McElroy, which drew widespread interest among Field’s colleagues, he defended his behavior. The review department rejected his assertions.

Although the misconduct could have resulted in disbarment, the court found extensive mitigation, including Field’s cooperation with the bar’s investigation, an impressive record of pro bono service and “an extraordinary demonstration of good character.” In particular, it expressly noted the testimony of former Santa Clara District Attorney George Kennedy, who lauded Field’s “extraordinary professional skills and good character” and said he considers Field an honest person who is not intentionally corrupt.

Field left the DA’s office and is now chief of staff with Working Partnerships USA, a San Jose company that addresses the needs of working families in Silicon Valley.

The California District Attorneys Association (CDAA) filed an amicus brief on his behalf warning that several of the grounds for discipline involved questions of law that have not been settled. “Attorneys should be disciplined for conduct that violates clearly established law, or conduct so outrageous that its illegality is obvious,” the amicus stated, “but should not be disciplined for conduct where the law is unsettled.”

Field’s attorney, Allen Ruby, did not return a phone call for comment, nor did W. Scott Thorpe, CDAA chief executive officer.

PHOENIX (CN) - Two more civil rights complaints against self-proclaimed "America's Toughest Sheriff" Joe Arpaio and his officers cite a "culture of hatred" of Hispanics, and racial profiling. One man claims a Maricopa County deputy ran him over and left him pinned under the police car in front of the man's own home, while assaulting and arresting family members who tried to help him.

The other complaint claims that sheriff's officers in black ski masks beat a Hispanic woman on a "crime sweep" of a business that had a contract with the county, then threw her in jail for two months without allowing her medical assistance for her injured teeth.

In that case, Celia Alvarez says she was jailed for two months without proper medical care after sheriff's made the "crime sweep" on Handyman Maintenance.

In that raid, on Feb. 11, 2009, Alvarez says two deputies "lifted her off her feet, and slammed her face into a wall," injuring her teeth, jaw, face and head.

After Alvarez was interrogated and placed "in a line with many other HMI employees, one of the deputies, completely unprovoked, violently struck" her on the arm with the metal part of a clipboard, she says. She was taken to county jail, where she was subjected to an "invasive and embarrassing strip search" in front of many deputies.

She sought medical attention, but was told that "her first opportunity for medical care would not occur for at least two weeks." She says she was jailed for more than two months without proper medical attention - for so long that "doctors have been unable to repair her condition even through surgery."

Alvarez seeks damages for illegal search and seizure, and assault. She is represented in Federal Court by Steven E. Harrison and N. Patrick Hall with Wallin Harrison of Gilbert, Ariz.
In the other complaint, Armando Nido says he was driving home when Maricopa County Sheriff's Deputy James Carey tried to pull him over for a broken tail light. Carey "illuminated his lights but did not run his siren," says Nido, a U.S. citizen.

Nido says he "slowly and cautiously proceeded to drive his vehicle home rather than immediately pull over" because he feared "the pattern and practice that had been implemented and exhibited by" the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office toward people of Hispanic descent.
Nido says he parked in front of his home and got out to speak to Carey, who "accelerated his own vehicle around the driver's side" of Nido's car, running him over.

Nido says he was trapped under the police car, unable to move, and Carey refused to help him or let his family help him. Nido says he "remained trapped under the vehicle until fire and paramedics arrived," with multiple broken bones and burns, all the while suffering verbal abuse from Carey.

After Carey ran him over, Nido says, his mother ran outside and pleaded to help her son, but Carey "struck her in the chest, knocked her to the ground, handcuffed her and arrested her."

Seeing the abuse, Nido's brother, Raul, began taking photos, and Carey and other deputies "tackled him to the ground, took the camera, handcuffed him, lifted him by his cuffed arms, knocked him to the ground again, re-lifted him by his cuffed arms, and arrested him," according to the complaint.

When a second brother, Rene Nido, sought to help his brother pinned under the car, Carey Tasered him, "handcuffed him, lifted him by his cuffed arms, and arrested him."
All charges filed against the Nidos were dropped, according to the Superior Court complaint. The Nidos say sheriff's detectives recommended that the County Attorney's Office prosecute Carey for aggravated assault, but charges were never filed.

The Nidos say there is a "culture of hatred" in Arpaio's department "to individuals who appear to be of Hispanic descent."

The Nidos seek damages for assault and battery, negligence, false imprisonment and civil rights violations. They are represented by Robert Ramirez with Miranda and Ramirez.

BRADY DUTY BUT NOT PITCHESS DUTY

The defendant was convicted of murder, and a key witness testified against him. The police detective told the defense that this guy wasn't a paid informant. Some years later, the defense stumbled across information which showed that the guy was in fact a paid informant. The defense now files a habeas petition.

The defense seeks Brady (373 U.S. 83) discovery of complaints in the detective's personnel file that the detective claimed that informants weren't paid when in fact they were.

This is an interesting case because the C/A finds no basis for Pitchess (11 C3d
531) discovery but does order review of the detective's personnel file on Brady grounds, correctly finding that prior complaints about the detective lying about informants being paid would impeach the detective's testimony at any habeas hearing. This is the first possible published case where the court finds a discovery duty under Brady but not
Pitchess.

Eulloqui v. Superior Court; 2010 DJ DAR 1930; DJ, 2/7/10; C/A 2nd,
Div. 1

A New York Jets fan was arrested by four San Diego Police Officers Sunday in what appeared to be an unprovoked attack by the cops. The Jets fan was arrested, handcuffed and escorted out of Qualcomm stadium amidst cries from Chargers fan, "He didn't do anything."

Chargers fans - losing - coming to the aid of a loud, gloating Jets fan? Yep. This appears to be another instance of police abuse in San Diego.

Check out the tape.:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJqd_5fC7ZI&feature=player_embedded

Secret tapes shared with defense lawyers
By Michael BurgeUnion-Tribune Staff Writer
2:00 a.m. October 23, 2009

OCEANSIDE — The District Attorney's Office is sharing with defense attorneys secret recordings of suspects' police interviews so they can weigh whether their clients' cases were compromised.

District Attorney spokesman Paul Levikow said yesterday that prosecutors have identified 37 cases in which Oceanside police Officer Damon Smith recorded interviews with suspects but didn't disclose their existence to prosecutors or defense lawyers.

Levikow said the recordings were made between April 2003 and May 2006, and between November 2008 and May 2009, when they came to light.

“The recordings have been or are being made available to the defense attorneys in those cases,” Levikow said. “They can decide how they can proceed.” He said it was unclear why there was a three-year gap between the recordings.

Bill Trainor, an assistant supervisor for the county Public Defender in North County, said he hadn't heard the tapes were being shared. “Neither (North County branch Supervisor) Larry Beyersdorf nor myself have been notified in either an official or unofficial capacity,” Trainor said. “I'm disquieted by this information.”

Trainor said he recently spoke with Summer Stephan, operations chief for the District Attorney's North County branch, “and she said there's an investigation in the downtown DA's office” into Smith's activities.”

Levikow said he had no comment on whether such an investigation was under way.
Other defense attorneys contacted said they had not yet heard from the district attorney whether cases of theirs were affected.

A spokesman for Oceanside police declined to say whether Smith was disciplined. Sgt. Kelan Poorman said such information is prevented from disclosure by the Peace Officer's Bill of Rights.