The Vanguard has received additional statements about the tasering that occurred in West Sacramento on September 8, 2009.
Mr. Dias, according to his lawyer’s statement, 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.
It was at this point, the suit filed in federal court by attorney Stewart Katz alleges, that Officer Reyna followed them to the gas station, where, failing to get Mr. Dias’ attention, the officer tasered him with no 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.
In a statement from Lt. Derrek Kaff, apparently of the Woodland Police Department, to the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office, dated September 2, 2011, he said that Officer Reyna walked him through the events that had occurred two years previously at the Shell gas station.
Lt. Kaff writes, “After reviewing the arrest and booking report (CHP #09-418) prepared by Officer Reyna and interviewing him at the location of the arrest I find that his use of force was appropriate.”
He adds, “Officer Reyna used his officer presence, verbal commands and warnings, an open hand control hold and tactical positioning prior to using his taser when he was presented with an immediate threat by Thomas.”
“Reyna told me he felt Thomas presented an immediate threat to his safety because Thomas continued to search around in the bed of the Toyota, possibly looking for a weapon, and Thomas failed to comply with Reyna’s verbal commands throughout the contact,” the Lieutenant’s report continues.
“Reyna gave Thomas a verbal warning that the taser would be used if Thomas did not comply with Reyna’s orders,” he said.
“Thomas again failed to comply with Reyna’s orders by not getting on the ground and Thomas told me he still felt there was an immediate threat to his safety presented by Thomas’ body posture of squaring off with Officer Reyna and Thomas’s failure to comply with Reyna’s verbal commands to get on the ground,” he continue.
According to Officer Reyna, the taser did not even work properly.
Writes Lt. Kaff: “Reyna fired the laser dart cartridge at Thomas, but based on the clicking noise Reyna heard during the cycle of the taser, I believe at least one of the taser darts did not connect with Thomas, causing an incomplete circuit and decreasing the effectiveness of the taser.”
At this point, according to the Lieutenant, Mr. Dias finally complied and lay on the ground.
“As Reyna approached Thomas to handcuff him, Scarlett [Mr. Dias’ niece] approached Reyna on his gun side cursing and yelling. Reyna pushed Scarlett away from his gun side for his safety.”
Lt. Kaff writes: “Reyna handcuffed Thomas and requested additional units to his location to assist him with Scarlett because she was still disorderly and screaming at him. This request for an additional unit to assist with Scarlett underscores the tense situation that the officer had to deal with at the scene and distracting nature of Scarlett’s behavior which added to the immediate threat Reyna felt.”
He continued: “Thomas confirmed that he was able to understand Reyna when Thomas followed Reyna’s instructions to put his foot under his knee to rise from a sitting to a standing position during the physical arrest. This would lead a reasonable person to believe that Thomas understood the orders given to him by Reyna and Thomas consciously chose not to follow Reyna’s orders.”
There is no indication in Lt. Kaff’s report that he spoke with anyone other than Officer Reyna in making this report and reaching the conclusion that the use of force was justified.
In the meantime, Michelle Keller, who was the passenger in Scarlett Dias’ SUV, tells a very different story. Ms. Keller is a friend of Ms. Dias and a co-worker of both Ms. Dias and Thomas Dias.
She describes the fact that when they ran out of gas and stopped at the side of the freeway, they were not stopped in a great location.
They called called 911 and the highway patrol officer showed up.
“I told him we ran out of gas,” Ms. Keller wrote. “The officer told Scarlett that he could push her SUV with his car, but she told him that she didn’t want to get her new SUV damaged and that she knew help would be there shortly.”
“She asked if he could just turn his lights on for safety until help arrived. At that point, the officer seemed to get mad and stormed off,” she continued.
Mr. Dias would show up with the gas can with him. They started the SUV and drove to the next exit, Reed Avenue, and stopped at the Shell Gas station.
“At no time did I see or hear the police car put on the emergency light or siren or use the PA system,” Ms. Keller wrote.
“We pulled next to a pump to get gas and Tom [Dias] stopped nearby. The patrol car parked directly behind Tom, approximately two feet from his bumper,” she continued.
“Tom was getting a piece of flooring we needed from the back of his truck and then I see and hear that Tom is being told to get back in his truck,” Ms. Keller continued. “At first he did not appear to hear the officer, but then he did and put the flooring down.”
It was at this point that Michelle Keller wrote that she saw Officer Reyna taser Mr. Dias. She was outside of the SUV and believes she was 15 to 20 feet away from Mr. Dias.
“The total time between us pulling in to the gas station and Tom being tasered was less than a minute. It was crazy,” she wrote.
“Scarlett totally freaked out. I was shocked and have never seen anything like that in my life. Tom had done nothing to deserve being shot with a taser,” she concluded.
We will still need to look at the arrest history and what transpired with any criminal charges.
While it is clear that both sides give very conflicting accounts and neither side would be considered a neutral party, there are, in particular, two things that are striking about Lt. Kaff’s account.
First, he never explains why Officer Reyna sought to detain Mr. Dias to begin with. We have no idea what the underlying reason for the officer to stop Mr. Dias was. Under the law, Mr. Dias is free to go about his business unless the officer has probable cause to detain him.
Second, if Lt. Kaff is supposed to be investigating the incident, one might have reason to believe that simply reading the arrest report and walking through the scene with the officer is insufficient.
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.”
Attorney Stewart Katz 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
This is going to be a tough one, since it is a “he said, he said” situation, unless there were some other neutral witnesses, which I assume there were not. But I do have to question why a simple situation of a car running out of gas could have turned into such an ugly confrontation. That said, I have my doubts about how successful the plaintiffs will be on the issue of the CHP allegedly not providing proper supervision/discipline/training.
On one minor point, the article states:
[quote]”I told him we ran out of gas,” Ms. Keller wrote. “The officer told Scarlett that he could push her SUV with his car, but she told him that she didn’t want to get her new SUV damaged and that she knew help would be there shortly.”
“She asked if he could just turn his lights on for safety until help arrived. At that point, the officer seemed to get mad and stormed off,” she continued.[/quote]
Here is my thought. Scarlett called the CHP for assistance. The CHP officer has limited time, and is willing to push her car off the road out of the way of traffic. Scarlett refuses the offer, bc she doesn’t want her car to get damaged! As if it would not be damaged if it is hit by oncoming traffic? As if it is not a danger to other cars? Scarlett then TELLS THE CHP WHAT SHE WANTS HIM TO DO, AS IF DECIDING FOR HIM WHAT HIS JOB IS. SHE WANTS HIM TO “BABYSIT” HER CAR, BY PUTTING HIS CAR IN HARMS WAY BEHIND HERS WITH HIS LIGHTS ON. IN OTHER WORDS ITS OKAY FOR HIM TO GET HIS CAR DAMAGED, AS LONG AS HERS IS NOT. I’m purely speculating here, but by this time I think if I had been the law enforcement officer, I would have been pretty ticked off with Scarlett.
But according to her story, the CHP officer “left”. Left the scene altogether? Just got back into his car? Why did the CHP officer follow the two to the gas station? Obviously the plaintiff and Scarlett were aware they were being followed by the CHP officer in his car because they said they did not see any lights turned on from officer’s car. There is something not quite right about either story, quite frankly. My guess is that there is one side, the other side, and the truth is somewhere in the middle. It will be interesting to see how this one turns out, altho I very much doubt the truth will come out. I assume the case will turn on the very narrow issue of whether the CHP gave proper supervision/discipline/training.
Elaine:
The complaint describes two witnesses, you are correct if the other witness is the niece that there will not be a neutral witness.
However there may be more evidence than that however, again reported last article:
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].”
So if they have evidence that there was a cover up of exculpatory evidence and that may have come out in the criminal proceedings, then there is a chance that there will be more than just he said/ he said.
“Scarlett then TELLS THE CHP WHAT SHE WANTS HIM TO DO, AS IF DECIDING FOR HIM WHAT HIS JOB IS. SHE WANTS HIM TO “BABYSIT” HER CAR, BY PUTTING HIS CAR IN HARMS WAY BEHIND HERS WITH HIS LIGHTS ON. IN OTHER WORDS ITS OKAY FOR HIM TO GET HIS CAR DAMAGED, AS LONG AS HERS IS NOT. I’m purely speculating here, but by this time I think if I had been the law enforcement officer, I would have been pretty ticked off with Scarlett. “
That’s an interesting view, the problem I see is that he hovered back behind the cars anyway but refused to put on the lights (according to her statements). And is it reasonable for a law enforcement officer to get upset when someone does not what him pushing the vehicle because it’s new and she doesn’t want it damaged.
“But according to her story, the CHP officer “left”. Left the scene altogether? Just got back into his car? Why did the CHP officer follow the two to the gas station? “
He went into his car, waited there, and then followed them to the gas station.
Why? I don’t know. One thought is he was trying to make sure they made it there safely, but once the guy has gassed it, what’s the purpose.
This is really where I wonder what’s happening and the friend doesn’t know and the officer or investigator has not said.
[quote]So if they have evidence that there was a cover up of exculpatory evidence and that may have come out in the criminal proceedings, then there is a chance that there will be more than just he said/ he said.[/quote]
Does the plaintiff have the exculpatory evidence in possession? If yes, then what is it, if you know? If not, then how do they know it exists? I don’t understand why there would be any hiding of the ball with respect to this exculpatory evidence.
I don’t know the answer to that. I’m not sure you put your evidence into a complaint, but I’m not a civil attorney.
I understand why the CHP Officer might have been miffed while the truck was sitting on the side of the road – idiot ran out of gas on freeway, then denied help after calling for it and generally wasted the officer’s time. But then help arrived and gas was put in the truck and both the truck and the car (the car that brought the gas) left and exited the freeway. Can anybody think of any reason why the CHP officer needed to recontact the people after they left the freeway? I do not think there is an infractiion for aiding a person on the side of the freeway.
[quote]Can anybody think of any reason why the CHP officer needed to recontact the people after they left the freeway? I do not think there is an infractiion for aiding a person on the side of the freeway.[/quote]
This is exactly the part that doesn’t make any sense to me.
[quote]I don’t know the answer to that. I’m not sure you put your evidence into a complaint, but I’m not a civil attorney.[/quote]
If the evidence disputed the facts in the case, I would think the plaintiff would put in anything that refuted the other side’s view of what actually occurred. Altho on appeal, usually the facts in the case are not what is in dispute. That is why I don’t understand why the exculpatory evidence, if it exists, is not incorporated into the facts. But I don’t do much appellate work (have done a little), and I don’t know to what extent your article may have left out important details bc they are unavailable for some reason. Interesting…
[i]”It was at this point, the suit filed in federal court by attorney Stewart Katz alleges, that Officer Reyna followed them to the gas station, where, failing to get Mr. Dias’ attention, the officer tasered him with no warning.”[/i]
This does not sound credible.
[i]”Reyna told me he felt Thomas presented an immediate threat to his safety because Thomas continued to search around in the bed of the Toyota, possibly looking for a weapon, and Thomas failed to comply with Reyna’s verbal commands throughout the contact,” the Lieutenant’s report continues.”[/i]
I don’t think this sounds like it a good justification for taser use, but it does sound entirely credible.
Rich: The funny thing is that it may well be that both of those things occurred, that Mr. Dias thought he did nothing to warrant getting tased, and the officer saw him looking for something in the truck bed, and overreacted when Dias did not respond quickly enough.
MISSION STATEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS
The mission of the California Highway Patrol is to provide the highest level of safety, service, and security to the people of California. This is accomplished through five departmental goals:
•Prevent Loss of Life, Injuries, and Property Damage – To minimize the loss of life, personal injury, and property damage resulting from traffic collisions through enforcement, education, and engineering. To enforce the provisions of the California Vehicle Code and other laws to prevent crime.
•Maximize Service to the Public and Assistance to Allied Agencies – To maximize service to the public in need of aid or information, and to assist other public agencies when appropriate.
•Manage Traffic and Emergency Incidents – To promote the safe and efficient movement of people and goods throughout California, and to minimize exposure of the public to unsafe conditions resulting from emergency incidents and highway impediments.
•Protect Public and State Assets – To protect the public, their property, state employees, and the state’s infrastructure. To collaborate with local, state, and federal public safety agencies to protect California.
•Improve Departmental Efficiency – To continuously look for ways to increase the efficiency and/or effectiveness of departmental operations.
[quote]Can anybody think of any reason why the CHP officer needed to recontact the people after they left the freeway? I do not think there is an infractiion for aiding a person on the side of the freeway.[/quote]
It would seem reasonable in light of an LEO potentially inducing reliance on a promise, express or implied, that they would provide protection.
[quote]the officer saw him looking for something in the truck bed, and [b] overreacted [/b] when Dias did not respond quickly enough. [/quote]
Ah, here we go again, an untrained lay person’s assessment of an officer’s conduct…
David, were you able to find out:
1. What “warning” is involved here? Speeding, tail light?
2. What the disposition was of the “resist, delay, or obstruct” case?
As others have pointed out, some of the things related in the complaint don’t seem reasonable and some seem, at least, exaggerated. Is it credible that a CHP officer gets this ticked off because a citizen sez “no thanks” to an courteous offer of help? Is it credible that all of the activity described in the complaint happened in “less than a minute”? Is it credible that Officer Reyna feared for his life/safety given his experience with the family that day?
Something just doesn’t ring reasonable with the details we gotten so far. And, even if he can prove a rogue officer with anger issues, there’d better be history the plaintiff can produce if he wants expand the blame to the training, supervision, etc. issues and the deeper pockets at CHP headquarters.
Then, there’s the biggest reach of all:[i][quote]”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 law enforcement officers, knowing that he is immune from suit despite his reprehensible actions.”[/quote][/i]Proving this will be quite an undertaking. Sounds as though somebody involved has been reading the [u]Vanguard[/u]. Are you ready to testify, David?
“Ah, here we go again, an untrained lay person’s assessment of an officer’s conduct…”
Ah yes, he was relying on his training and experience.
BTW, what is a juror but an untrained lay person who gets thrown hundreds of pages on the law at the last second?
[quote]BTW, what is a juror but an untrained lay person who gets thrown hundreds of pages on the law at the last second?[/quote]
That may be, but the juror at least gets more information than I think we are being provided. As JustSaying has noted, something about this whole thing just doesn’t add up… there are too many holes in the story to make any assessment…
We’re not being asked to do anything with this information though.
[quote]Under the law, Mr. Dias is free to go about his business unless the officer has probable cause to detain him.[/quote]
When someone is being detained the level is reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. What we don’t know is what Dias was being detained for.
From Wiki
[quote]Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch’ ”;[1] it must be based on “specific and articulable facts”, “taken together with rational inferences from those facts”.[2] Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such a detention is known as a Terry stop. If police additionally have reasonable suspicion that a person so detained may be armed, they may “frisk” the person for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the “reasonable person” or “reasonable officer” standard,[3] in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; it depends upon the totality of circumstances, and can result from a combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous. [/quote]
Thanks Mr Obvious for the additional clarification on stops/detention, which points to the paucity and possible inaccuracy of the information we do have from this article. My reading of this case tells me there is just not enough information here to draw any intelligent conclusions. We just don’t have the whole picture it would seem – for instance, not even the supposed exculpatory evidence it was alleged was withheld.
[quote]Thanks Mr Obvious for the additional clarification on stops/detention, which points to the paucity and possible inaccuracy of the information we do have from this article. My reading of this case tells me there is just not enough information here to draw any intelligent conclusions. We just don’t have the whole picture it would seem – for instance, not even the supposed exculpatory evidence it was alleged was withheld. [/quote]
A less than plenary report from the DV, again? Oh my…