By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Visalia, CA – It was another case where a family called the police after their loved one was having a psychiatric emergency and the police came and the situation progressed to the point where the man suffering from schizophrenia ended up bitten on the face by the K-9, the family says while restrained and rendered helpless by the police.
The family along with Civil Rights Attorney James DeSimone announced a civil rights lawsuit on Tuesday in Visalia.
The family alleges that the Visalia Police violated Jordan Gutierrez civil rights when the set a K-9 loose on him while his arms were being restrained behind his back already. They further allege they delayed getting him medical care following the incident.
“(T)he man’s maltreatment continued when officers did not disclose the man’s schizophrenia to 
doctors who treated him when they finally brought him to a local hospital,” the suit alleges. “They then threw him in jail where his condition worsened as they denied him necessary medication and treatment.”
The lawsuit alleges that Gutierrez was left for two days in just a hospital gown, underwear and shoes, as his mental health deteriorated.
“Jordan’s mother called 911 for help to have her son brought to a hospital.” said DeSimone, the Marina del Rey, Calif., civil rights attorney representing Jordan Gutierrez and his mother Yajaida Keys. “Instead of rendering aid, they had a K-9 do their dirty work, attacking the helpless Jordan Gutierrez as he was being held securely by two Visalia Police officers.”
“Based on our investigation, we contend that the Visalia police department has a policy and practice of using its K-9s to torture mentally ill individuals who are perceived as vulnerable,” DeSimone added.
The incident happened just after 5 pm on Tuesday, October 20, 2020. Police according to media accounts were called to the scene after Keys called and claimed that Gutierrez became violent.
According to Sgt. Celestina Sanchez in local media accounts, the Visalia police officers attempted communication with him but he took off allegedly throwing trash cans at a patrol car and kicked at one of them.
“Jordan was still not cooperating and still not complying. Jordan also had one of his hands in his pocket so the officers weren’t sure if he had a weapon on him,” Sanchez said.
At this point, they grabbed him arms and that’s when the dog attacked.
Sanchez acknowledged in the media account that it was unknown as to why the K-9 bit Gutierrez first on his hip and then his face.
A video was provided to the media – a cell phone video from some distance. The video does not show the can incident.
While the police claim he threw the trash cans at him, Keys saw it differently.
“Jordan… took off running because he saw a police car with its lights on chasing him,” she said. “My son ran and he lifted trash cans out of the way as he ran.”
The video picks up when they had him cornered with a taser pointing at him. They moved him to the back of the police car which when the K-9 bit him in the face.
Gutierrez suffered serious bites to his face and hip.
“The K-9 dog’s fangs sliced open Mr. Gutierrez’s neck beneath his chin, Mr. Gutierrez’s bottom lip, and his nostril down almost to his top lip. Blood gushed from Mr. Gutierrez’s face,” the lawsuit claims.
DeSimone pointed out in an interview with the Vanguard that once the video comes on and Gutierrez stops running. “He never moves from the spot that he’s initially cited at by those officers.” He added, “He’s not in a threatening way.”
DeSimone alleges from the start that the first officer acts very aggressively. He has a taser out, pointing it at Gutierrez and threatening to arrest the mother.
Keys said on the video that the police don’t need to taze him, he needs medical attention. The officer responds that he needs this for his protection because he threw garbage cans at me.
“That’s the first lie,” DeSimone said. “The sister saw this – he didn’t throw any garbage cans at these officers. They were knocked over when they (the police) were still in the car.”
The first encounter with the officer he says, “Get back or I’m going to arrest you.”
DeSImone said, “From a perspective of how should police respond to mental health calls that a family member has called for assistance. It made sense to speak with that family member and get information about what the situation is… Instead he says get back or I’m going to arrest you.”
Is this just a matter of police not being properly trained to deal with a mental health crisis?
According to DeSimone when he communicated with the city of Visalia, they said that their officers have this type of training.
“That even makes it worse,” he said. “If they’re trained on how to intervene and mental health situations, and this is what they bring, I mean, they basically, they basically came to be battle with a non-violent unarmed, mentally ill young man whose mom called for help. And he hadn’t done anything.”
He said, “I think it’s more of a policy within the city of Visalia that these officers have been allowed to get away with this with impunity. There’s no accountability for excessive force.”
DeSimone added, “I don’t think it’s a matter of training. I think it’s a matter of cruel and sadistic officers using excessive force against vulnerable people. That is the ultimate in reprehensible conduct by police officers. There was no threat whatsoever that day.”
For his part, since the incident, Gutierrez has both mental and physical scars.
“My son is definitely super traumatized,” Keys told the Vanguard. “He sits in the dark, he doesn’t go anywhere. If he does come with me, he doesn’t get out of the car. I mean, he’s extremely traumatized. He sees police officers and he immediately like weeps.”
The city, police chief and three other officers are also named in the lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court in Sacramento.
The federal civil rights lawsuit comes just months after the city was sued for the unlawful arrest and injuries inflicted on a mentally disabled man who was walking through a shopping center parking lot across the street from his home.
Yeah, that’s their policy. They pick out the perceived vulnerable mentally ill and torture them with K-9s.
I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt on that one, but also say they didn’t handle this situation well and if they are trained, they were not trained properly.
Well that’s big of you. I say it’s full of huey.
As part of the reporting of these type of incidents, I would think that the author might want to report on the activities that were causing family members to reach out to police in the first place. For example, whether or not the individual was threatening others.
If that’s the case, I understand that a primary duty of the police is to take action to protect others.
Not saying that this is the case here, but I can see how calling the police ultimately provides an opportunity to subsequently sue them, with the help of attorneys who pursue that.
So there is this, without providing detail:
So yeah, I understand that dogs are used both for effectiveness in subduing someone (without using deadly force), and to avoid injury to human officers. And that those who are creating a problem for others might then experience an injury as a result.
For which the police might subsequently sued by those who call them.
Though dogs usually hold onto limbs, from what I’ve seen. Then again, they are ultimately animals – who might not always react “perfectly”, themselves. (Even more so, if the dogs themselves are being attacked.)
Here’s one piece of advice: If the police tell you (or you see) that they’re about to release dogs on you, you might already have crossed a line that will create problems for yourself if you continue. Basically, one step short of them pointing a gun at you.
Not to worry, though – you can sue them later, apparently.
This does not surprise me!Visalia PD are known for there unethical behavior in matters like this I wont go into detail as to how i know this. But when u see it frist hand. I hope and prey that family wins there lawsuit VPD needs ther egos checked!!!!!
I don’t view articles like this as a factual account. Especially when it starts out like this:
It’s “their”. But really, the guy who might win the most lives here:
Nice place, by the way. I recall wandering around the harbor there a few years ago, looking at all the nice boats/yachts. More evidence that I should have become an attorney.
I’m more interested in the reason(s) that the guy with schizophrenia wasn’t (already) at a facility that could treat him in the first place – a “secured” facility, if necessary. And, how many times police might have already been called to that home, prior to this incident.
But as far as cash-strapped cities are concerned, perhaps more of them should let these cases go to trial – even if they lose (rather than settle).
And maybe others should stop blaming the police for doing “their” job – especially when “they” are not the ones who caused a problem for others. (In a case like this, where violence has reportedly already occurred, the police would be part of ANY team that shows up.)
Wow, that’s an incredibly over-the-top statement ever for a mouthpiece article for a civil rights attorney trying to sway public opinion. Does he really think that statement ius going to help his lawsuit? I was mostly thinking what a tragic situation this all was — but when I read that I immediately question the entire story line.
The rhetoric was a little juiced, but the situation was pretty straight forward. The only thing that is not clear from watching the video is the garbage can and whether he threw it. Everything else was described accurately.
Another lesson I’ve learned (from participating on the Vanguard) is to avoid describing what I see on videos.
Learned that the hard way, by viewing and discussing the “picnic day” incident. What a waste of time that turned out to be.
I’d hate to be on the same jury with some of the people who author articles on here. Those deliberations would be endless, and would nevertheless (probably) result in a hung jury every time. Even with (or especially with?) crystal-clear videos.
A little? I love how you try to downplay this.
My point is that rhetoric aside, the incident was not handled properly by police, I love how you keep avoiding that issue.
The officers and department could well have been sued for that is they had “disclosed” that… a) not personal knowledge/expertise, b) HIPPA even if they had both.
And the author can document the mental scars? C’mon… facts not in evidence. Sniffs like a “hit piece”… no professional source cited…
Nothing in the article indicates the officers “knew” the man was schizophrenic or mentally ill, at the time of contact… goes again to “hit piece”, or Wednesday night ‘quarterbacking’… but stories like this will tend to shift the burden of “innocent until proven guilty” towards, “guilty until proven innocent”… criminally and civilly, for the officers, police chief and the really deep pockets, the City… big payday for the attorneys… and the family…
This story line is (perversely) interesting, to see how it plays out… but the story sniffs of “yellow dog journalism”… guess this will be ‘the new normal’ for the VG… and speaks to the bent of the Executive Editor thereof…
Good points.
I would have to acknowledge that (regardless of who is to “blame”, e.g., if anyone other than “K-9 officer”), that is one ugly-looking injury that the guy suffered.
(I’m assuming that the dog is an officer, regarding that comment. I’ve seen them referred to that way, before.)
I believe the mother identified him as such when she called the police, moreover, she certainly said it during the incident multiple times because she informed the officer on video.
You “believe”… basis for your belief? Speculation? Bias? Videos?
What makes you so sure PD should have acted on it? Should PD assume that if someone is “armed and dangerous”, they should act accordingly, even if reported by a family member?
Yet, you ignore the “mental trauma” accusation… I do not argue the physical scar aspect…
I said I believe because I didn’t personally witness it, but the mother told me. Regardless, I heard her tell the officer on video prior to the dog attack.
I think the second paragraph goes to the whole issue of – how to handle mental health calls. And having mental health professionals rather than cops respond. There was no effort at de-escalation that I saw on the video – it was all command/ order escalation when he failed to respond.
Also you have made the HIPAA point a number of times previously and I don’t think you understand the law. Law enforcement is not bound under HIPAA only medical practitioners and those who deal with medical records are.
I think most will agree that there is a common thread here, and it is by no means unique, with possibly no one dying. Still, we have a mentally ill person known to be schizophrenic and potentially experiencing a psychotic episode in one corner. On the other, we have the police; it should be safe to say that a competent and qualified dispatcher dispatched the Officers making the Officers aware of the type of call being sent on; however, there is some question as to whether or not fire and medically were also dispatched as a mental health emergency should be considered a medical call and not a penal code violation and treated as such since a mental health crisis is best treated in a medical facility than a custodial lock-up. Additionally, officers are taught to gain immediate control through compliance techniques which often work well when dealing with people who understand the reality of going against several police officers, not to mention a dog who was probably amped-up and ready to be a police dog but not well when dealing with people who are not seeing reality at all.
The police were responding to a call where a person was being called violent. Of course the police will take certain steps and precautions.
Sure. That’s fine. But doesn’t explain them not using de-escalation techniques, ordering a person suffering mental illness and allowing the dog to bite an already restrained person. Even the police sergeant couldn’t explain why the dog attacked the man here.
I don’t think anyone thinks the dog should’ve bit Gutierrez. That was a mistake on the part of the cops. Was the dog purposely let loose or did the dog escape his handler? All I’m saying is the cops were responding to an incident where violence was part of the equation so they’re going to respond accordingly.