Vanguard News Desk Editor
SACRAMENTO, CA – A federal judge here has, according to the plaintiffs, “largely denied” attempts by the city of Sacramento to get a lawsuit tossed that claims racial justice protestors were attacked by police and “far right protestors” during demonstrations in 2020 and 2021.
A four-week trial in “White v. City of Sacramento” is now set to begin March 10 in which the plaintiffs will challenge what they charge are Sacramento Police Department’s “discriminatory and violent policing tactics.”
“The Court has found that the warfare waged by the Sacramento Police Department against racial justice protestors, including through its unfettered use of chemical weapons and kinetic impact munitions, must be scrutinized by a jury. We look forward to holding the City of Sacramento accountable at trial,” said Marissa Hatton, senior staff attorney at Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area (LCCRSF), in a statement Thursday.
U.S. District Court Judge John Mendez did, in a pretrial hearing, throw out portions of the civil rights suit dealing with conspiracy, noting the plaintiffs’ claim of “conspiracy” failed because they did not identify specific officers.
Plaintiffs insist the “police use of excessive, indiscriminate force against protestors was aimed at suppressing peaceful racial justice demonstrations while allowing far-right protests, such as the ‘Stop the Steal’ rally, to proceed without interference, even when far-right protesters engaged in violence.”
Lawyers for the plaintiffs said the “court highlighted that the plaintiffs had provided compelling evidence, including body camera footage, for their case to proceed to trial. Judge John Mendez noted during the hearing that plaintiffs had submitted ‘overwhelming’ evidence in support of their arguments that SPD’s actions were ‘motivated by a desire to suppress racial justice and anti-police sentiment.’”
”The First Amendment claims, again, the evidence presented by the plaintiffs clearly created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Sacramento Police Department distinguished between speakers based on their expressed viewpoints, whether the police were motivated by a desire to suppress a particular viewpoint,” said the judge in a pretrial hearing in December.
The court added that “the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs in response to the motion for summary judgment creates a genuine dispute as to whether the plaintiffs’ protected activity here was a ‘substantial or motivating factor’ in the (police) conduct.
“The use of force against protesters, indiscriminate force against protesters, does support an inference that police actions were substantially motivated by plaintiffs’ protected First Amendment activity…plaintiffs’ depositions created genuine issues of material fact. There’s no dispute (police) did deploy teargas, rubber bullets, pepper balls.”
“The evidence in this case shows that the Sacramento Police Department violently discriminated against our clients and other peaceful racial justice protestors because the police disagreed with their message,” said the plaintiffs’ legal counsel.
“The extreme and discriminatory violence by the Sacramento Police Department has left us with lasting trauma,” said Loren Kidd, a plaintiff in the case.
Kidd added, “The First Amendment should not be conditional upon political ideology. We hope this case will shine a light on the City’s failure to protect our constitutional right to protest against white supremacy and police violence, and result in meaningful change to how SPD responds to peaceful protests in the future.”
“We are proud to stand alongside our clients in their pursuit of justice and accountability,” said Aviance Brown, Staff Attorney at Disability Law United. “The Court’s ruling ensures that the voices of those who stood up for Black lives and against police brutality will be heard in a court of law.”
Settlement efforts have been unsuccessful, according to plaintiffs, who added they will use their ”own testimony, extensive videocam footage of unlawful police activity, expert reports showing the inadequacy of SPD’s policies and oversight, and other evidence to support their claim for damages, injunctive relief, and recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs.”
The lawsuit was filed by LCCRSF, Disability Law United, and Siegel Yee Brunner & Mehta.
Just in case anyone was wondering if there’s still an over-supply of lawyers . . .