‘This outrageous incident provided a perfect opportunity to implement new, modern policies geared towards long-term reform’ – Civil Rights Attorney John Burris
(From Press Release) – Civil Rights Attorney John Burris and his law firm are announcing the settlement of their Federal civil rights lawsuit related to the April 10, 2017 ‘Police unprovoked assault of a jaywalker’ incident (caught on video) which sparked national outrage.
On April 10, 2017, pedestrian Nandi Cain was racially profiled and beaten by Sacramento Police Officer Anthony Figueroa while walking home from work. A cell phone video of the vicious attack immediately went viral prompting national outrage as people witnessed Mr. Cain thrown to the ground and struck upwards of 20 times by City of Sacramento Police Department. Mr. Cain suffered a 
broken nose and a concussion during the incident.
According to Burris, ‘Mr. Cain has agreed to settle his claims for $550,000, in addition to the City of Sacramento agreeing to implement several important policy changes.’ Burris explains that ‘Monetary settlements alone do little to improve policing, but when paired with policy changes and mandatory training we hope to slowly chip away at the systemic problems plaguing the City of Sacramento Police Department and many other departments around the country.’
Burris explains that ‘This outrageous incident provided a perfect opportunity to implement new, modern policies geared towards long-term reform.’
According to Burris, ‘The City of Sacramento was very open to implementing policy and training changes, which is an important step in improving community relations with the police department and reducing incidents that result in serious injury and death.’
The reforms the City has agreed to begin to implement are:
- The city will support the judicial record expungement of the arrest related to this incident.
- Officer Anthony Figueroa will not work as a patrol officer in Del Paso Heights during calendar years 2018 and 2019 and will not seek assignment in the Del Paso Heights area until after he has successfully completed mandatory scenario based Implicit Bias and Procedural Justice training.
- The city will implement mandatory scenario based Procedural Justice & Implicit Bias training for all sworn employees with the Sacramento Police Department.
- The city will implement an audit process for Body Worn Camera footage for SPD patrol officers that includes a comparison of the footage to the corresponding police report to check for accuracy. Further, the audit process shall review footage to determine if officers are implementing the concepts learned in their Implicit Bias and Procedural Justice training. The City will also implement a policy to provide audit results for Body Worn Camera footage to the public. The city will provide updates to Plaintiff every six months, for the first 36 months, including statistical data, compliance with mandatory training and audit results.
- The city will make changes concerning the use of force policy by all sworn SPD employees.
- The city will adopt a program of cultural immersion training for the Police Academy.
- The City will implement a program for tracking and reporting to the public statistics relating to citations issued to citizens for J-walking throughout the City. The City will audit the statistical data collected relating to J-walking citations to determine possible bias in enforcement. The statistics and audit results relating to the issuance of J-walking citations will be posted on a public forum. The City will track and report to the public statistics relating to J-walking citations for a period of 36 months.
What a country, don’t obey an officer’s directions then challenge him to a fight and get awarded $550,000 in a court settlement. Only in America.
He was likely illegally stopped which made his directions invalid. He suffered serious injuries and was severely mistreated in jail. And the officer was clearly in the wrong to engage him in a fight.
Keith
As David replied, plus you forgot the part where the officer chose not to de-escalate the encounter but rather chose to act like a street brawler and beat the guy up.
A man crossing the street at an intersection, where he has the right of way, is stopped and then beaten by a cop. His offense? Walking while black. What a country, indeed.
Watch for yourself: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article146114669.html
Did he not obey the cop’s instructions? Did he then challenge the cop to a fight?
There is some gray here. The instructions may not have been lawful. Also him challenging the cop to the fight is actually immaterial.
Lucky for him he wasn’t holding a cell phone.
When reasonable people are stopped by the police they usually listen to the cop’s instructions and don’t challenge them to a fight.
Maybe he was nice and play for the first 10 times he was stuff for no reason by police officers and got a little testy the 11th time
“Watch for yourself”
Pointless to those blinded by fear and/or hatred. It is clear at :20 into the video that the victim is crossing at the corner. After the victim asserts his innocence at about 1:50 the cop takes him down to the ground and begins a vicious and uncalled for beating. Perhaps if they took the $550k out of all of the cops salaries, they’d get the point. Doubt it, but who knows?
Yeah… saw the video… trained in traffic engineering, and surviving traffic situations for ~60 years, I noted his behavior… he looked both ways… he was not a danger to himself nor others… think the basketball term is, “no harm, no foul”…
Have come to the conclusion, in this incident, that whatever ‘technical’ offense there was on the part of the ‘jay-walker’, was de minimus… no consequence… the “perp” did show a bit of “attitude” when bogusly confronted… I might have done the same, given the facts in evidence to date, that I have seen… am not privy to all details…
The “officer” appears to be a ‘bully’ (bullies are generally cowards) … the officer, IMO should never wear a badge, nor carry any weapon (not even a pocket knife) again. IMO…
All that said, the size of the monetary judgement, given the other ‘remedies’ enacted/proposed is somewhat obscene… half, or a quarter (but also covering any actual medical costs) would be more ‘just’. Half the settlement, of any size, should have come from the resources and/or estate of the officer, IMO.
So, John agree with aspects of your post, but not 100%. Have known/worked with many good, upright police officers… have also had to work with/deal with the ‘dregs’ of those employed as police officers… I was trained by parents, and life experience, not to generalize.
When Howard says: “Half the settlement, of any size, should have come from the resources and/or estate of the officer, IMO.” I’m wondering why he didn’t say ALL the settlement “should have come from the resources and/or estate of the officer” . I don’t see why taxpayers (or taxpayer paid for insurance) needs to keep paying out thousands (and millions) to officers acting badly (who many times don’t even lose their jobs).
https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/SF-man-awarded-10-million-after-jury-finds-12813726.php
Simple… because other officers were present and did not intervene timely… that goes to the organization…
Ken: My view is that forcing the taxpayers to have to pay the settlement means that they will put pressure on the government to stop hiring bad cops. In theory. Unfortunately it doesn’t seem to have worked very well.
And when reasonable cops are challenged to a fight they don’t take the person up on it and beat the crap out of them. That may be acceptable on the school playground, but it’s incompetent police work.
On second thought, such conduct probably wouldn’t be tolerated on the school playground either.
Say his name!
Why? It’s already in the article and I’m talking in general terms.
Say his name!
It would be interesting to see the Powerpoint slides for the “Procedural Justice & Implicit Bias training” that “all sworn employees with the Sacramento Police Department” will be taking.