Man Sues CHP For Yolo County Tasering Incident

Suit Alleges DA Reisig Prosecuted In Order to Cover Up Law Enforcement Wrongdoing

In the early afternoon of Tuesday, September 8, 2009, Thomas Dias received a call advising him that his niece, with whom he worked at a family-owned flooring company, had run out of gas and was on the shoulder of I-80 eastbound, east of Reed Avenue in West Sacramento.

He went to assist her with a can of gasoline.  Mr. Dias put in enough gas to allow her truck to get off the freeway and then followed her to a gas station for the purposes of making sure she was all right, as well as to transfer some work materials to her truck..

CHP Officer Raul Reyna, according to a suit filed in federal court by attorney Stewart Katz, had allegedly been parked, observing both the disabled vehicle and Mr. Dias.  He followed them to the gas station, where he claims that he wanted to get Mr. Dias’ attention so that he could give him a warning.

According to Mr. Katz, “Frustrated by his inability to get [Mr. Dias’] attention verbally, [Officer Reyna], without adequate warning, shot [Mr. Dias] with a Taser Electronic Control Device and arrested him for purportedly violating Penal Code section 148.”

Mr. Dias is a 54-year-old male who claims to be 5-8, 170 pounds.  He has no criminal record.

Two years after the incident, Mr. Dias is seeking damages for Violation of Federal & State Civil Rights Statutes; State Law Battery and Wrongful Arrest; and Supervisory Liability.

According to his attorney, Mr. Dias did not say anything to the officer, “let alone anything that was provocative.”

Mr. Katz claims that two witnesses describe the officer as inexplicably angry with Mr. Dias, who was completely unaware that the officer had even followed him into the station or was losing his composure.

Mr. Katz argues that the Taser was deployed without warning, and Mr. Dias was shocked further with the device in drive mode.

The officer would later explain that he wanted to give Mr. Dias a warning, but he then compounded the incident by arresting Mr. Dias for resisting the arrest (PC Section 148).

“[Mr. Dias] had never been arrested let alone convicted of any criminal offense in his life,” his attorney contends.  He asserted that “this arrest was made for the purpose of attempting to insulate [Officer Reyna] and others from either the administrative and civil consequences of his unprovoked assault upon [Mr. Dias].

“Shortly after the incident a secret investigation was conducted by as yet unidentified agents or officers of the California Highway Patrol, which revealed significant and unambiguously exculpatory evidence for [Mr. Dias] and which revealed the sham that [Officer Reyna] and others were trying to perpetrate on the court,” Mr. Katz further contends.

He further claims that at least two officers failed to disclose this exculpatory information which was “their constitutionally mandated duty, resulting in perpetuation of the criminal proceedings against [Mr. Dias].”

Mr. Katz also charges District Attorney Jeff Reisig with contributing to this problem by prosecuting, in order to insulate the law enforcement officer.

“Plaintiff asserts that criminal charges were filed for the express and sole purpose of attempting to insulate [Officer Reyna] and others from civil liability,” Mr. Katz further alleges. “This is part of a pattern of improperly motivated and factually contra-indicated filing decisions made by the Yolo County District Attorney to protect miscreant [a] law enforcement officer[s], knowing that he is immune from suit despite his reprehensible actions.”

Among the causes of action is the failure to supervise and discipline, whereby the plaintiff argues, “The inaction of defendants was a direct and proximate cause of the injuries suffered by plaintiff in that said defendants tacitly encouraged, ratified and/or approved of the violation of plaintiff’s rights and/or failed to adequately investigate and discipline the use of excessive force to prevent the occurrence of the constitutional violations alleged above.”

He argues also that the failure to properly train and supervise on the use of appropriate force, “amounted to deliberate indifference to the rights and privileges of citizens of the State of California to be free of excessive force and unlawful entries into their homes.”

He continues: “The inaction of defendants was a direct and proximate cause of the injuries suffered by plaintiff in that said defendants tacitly encouraged, ratified and/or approved of the violation of plaintiff’s rights and/or failed to adequately train their officers and/or employees to prevent the occurrence of the constitutional violations alleged above.”

The matter is now before the Eastern District of California US District Court.  In addition to CHP Officer Raul Reyna, CHP Captain Darren Iketani and CHP Lt. Dan Seaman are named defendants.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

Categories: