SACRAMENTO, CA – Three police officers were grilled by civil right lawyers here in Federal Court Friday during Day 5 of a trial launched by racial justice activists against the Sacramento Police Dept.
Opening statements covered by the Davis Vanguard earlier this week noted the city of Sacramento paid a $350,000 settlement to the activists, and now, activists are suing to change what they claim is the police department’s violent and biased policies toward racial justice and police brutality activists.
Racial Justice Senior Staff Attorney Marissa Hatton asked a SPD Sergeant about a report he wrote during one of the Proud Boys’ protests, and whether he really believe the Proud Boys carried knives for protection.
The Sergeant claimed it was true based on his observation, but denied, when attorney Hatton asked, based on the report, that he believed the Proud Boys carried knives for protection while Antifa—an anti-fascist group—carried them for vandalism, noting, “Not necessarily.”
According to the Anti-Defamation League, Proud Boys is a “right-wing extremist group with a history of using violence, targeted harassment and intimidation to achieve their political goals and combat perceived enemies like ‘antifa.’”
The Sergeant explained he wrote this specific robbery report because an officer from the Fresno Police Department had been identified as participating in the Proud Boys’ protest and possibly in the assault.
Judge John A. Mendez questioned why there was so much background information on the protest when the situation was about a robbery, and the Sergeant said it was in anticipation that the victim would come forward, and it was appropriate for contextual use.
Attorney Hatton then asked the Sergeant if he recognized a flyer from the Sacramento Police Dept, Criminal Justice Unit. He claimed he did not, but added flyers were used to disseminate information to police officers for information through email. This flyer, according to the Sergeant, was estimated to be from 2020, when the Proud Boys were prominent.
Attorney Hatton asked where the information for these flyers was typically gathered from and about the accuracy of these flyers, and the Sergeant explained it was typically from online and social media, admitting, “We were putting out our best information quickly (…) not always consistent.”
Attorney Scott Thorne, on behalf of the defense, had the Sergeant also admit the flyers were not “policy,” adding, after the judge asked, that carrying a knife for any reason is illegal if it’s concealed.
Attorney Hatton then asked the Sergeant if these flyers, also referenced as bulletins, were customary and if they were used for situational awareness, and the Sergeant stated that they were customary for sworn officers and used for their safety to recognize members of groups.
Body camera footage was played by Attorney Hatton, which, according to her, described an incident that occurred on Nov. 7, 2020, at a Proud Boys demonstration.
Attorney Hatton then asked the Sergeant if he had seen the man dressed in a black shirt walking back from a Trump rally with a concealed knife, and if the Sergeant had testified that carrying a concealed knife was illegal, to which the witness said, “Yes.”
Retired SPD Captain and now International Compliance Officer Rudolph Chan was the next witness, and was asked by plaintiffs’ attorney EmilyRose Johns to explain the Use of Force Review.
Chan disclosed that, after the shooting of Stephon Clark, there was a recommendation report from the Department of Justice. One recommendation used was “the establishment of Use of Force Review Board,” and it was decided to implement that recommendation.
Chan said the Use of Force Review Board is composed of a “panel of senior officers, captains, and at least one department chief.”
Attorney Rose Johns clarified whether he looked at instances that involved the use of force during his time on the board in July 2020 and identified if the use was in policy, utilizing a spreadsheet.
The spreadsheet mentioned was created by scrubbing police reports, categorizing use of force instances, alongside officer names, and body camera clips associated with incidents used for analysis, attorney Rose Johns detailed for the court.
Officer Chan stated they didn’t solely use the spreadsheet.
Judge Mendez asked Officer Chan if officers were ever called in when the board was conducting a review of the use of force.
Officer Chan said they weren’t, but board decisions and meeting summaries were documented.
Judge Mendez questioned if he would be able to use said document to identify how many officers were determined to act out of policy. Officer Chan stated he would. Judge Mendez then requested the documents from the defense.
Expanding on the spreadsheet, attorney Rose Johns asked about its organization, and Chan explained that report numbers could be given to individual instances that occurred within the protests.
Attorney Rose Johns asked if every use of force listed on the spreadsheet had been reviewed by the board, and Chan stated he would have to see a side-by-side of the spreadsheet and meeting memos.
Attorney Rose Johns presented Exhibit 229 and asked Officer Chan to analyze if any memorandum was missing besides August.
Judge Mendez clarified for witness Chan, stating, “Does it seem like those are all the memos you wrote?” And Chan identified that there seemed to be no meeting for September and didn’t recall if that meeting was canceled.
Attorney Rose Johns asked if the captains could have chosen not to present cases to the board, and Chan said it was expected of them to present all cases.
Chan explained that it wasn’t used exclusively but, in addition to Blue Team, “I would not be able to vouch for the accuracy of the document…this document was an aid (to see a) snapshot of the uses of force.”
Judge Mendez asked if it was fair to say the board didn’t review every use of force.
“I don’t feel comfortable answering that,” replied Chan.
“You were there,” voiced Judge Mendez, “you ran the meetings.”
Chan claimed that he couldn’t state for certain if all level two uses of force were reviewed, but the board was told all pending reviews for use of force were completed.
“Do you recall any officer who you reviewed for level two use of force suspended or terminated?” questioned Judge Mendez.
Chan stated that it would be a question for Internal Affairs.
Judge Mendez stated he couldn’t see anything in the memos that “referred to International Affairs,” thus, Judge Mendez stated the court would conclude no officer who used level two use of force for these events was suspended or terminated.
Attorney Rose Johns intervened and confirmed with Chan if there was a possibility that nothing would happen after the review is done by the board, and Chan confirmed.
Judge Mendez asked what “Confidential Assignment” on the spreadsheet meant, and Chan stated he would be speculating if he responded, adding later it could mean undercover officers.
For clarity, Attorney Rose Johns questioned if that meant an undercover officer shot at the demonstration.
Officer Chan claimed the officer assignment would not matter, and the situation would be reviewed regardless.
Judge Mendez commented, “I don’t understand how Confidential Assignment doesn’t mean anything to you as head of the board.”
“I did not use (the spreadsheet) as a source document,” claimed Chan, but agreed that officers who use lethal weapons should have names displayed for accountability.
Attorney Rose Johns questioned if it was Officer Chan’s understanding that discipline of officers who used force was added to that officer’s file.
Officer Chan, in response to Rose John’s question, said discipline of officers who used force was added to that officer’s file, but were removed from their record within a year, unless there was formal re-training in effect, then it would stay on their file.
Attorney Rose Johns asked if this training was logged in as disciplinary training, but Chan stated it was just documented as training.
Cross-examination of the witness on behalf of the defense was conducted by Senior Deputy City Attorney Sean Richmond, who was able to get Chan to explain the incident was taken from supervisor reports, then input in Blue Team, and then went through the chain of command, reaching the last step of forwarding the incident for review suggestions.
Attorney Richmond asked when this process came into effect with the Use of Force Review Board, and Chan recalled the beginning date to be mid-July 2020.
Officer Chan stated it was upon the DOJ’s recommendation this protocol was the best practice to avoid inconsistency by allowing multiple layers of review.
Chan explained officers were not brought in by the board as it “would open up other issues that could be problematic.” Instead, he added, incidents were run through the chain of command, and expert guidance would be brought in for possible training and policy change.
The third Sacramento Police Dept. Capt. questioned was Brent Kaneyuki, whom plaintiffs’ attorney Hatton said was an expert in crowd control.
Attorney Hatton stated that, during the times of the George Floyd Protests, officers had not received any training since 2018, and the Riot and Control Manual in effect at the time was from December 1988. Captain Kaneyuki confirmed.
Attorney Hatton referenced Section E of the manual, where she stated that policy allowed for a big jump from the use of force, to which Captain Kaneyuki agreed it was a jump.
Attorney Hatton asked if Captain Kaneyuki liked the way things were phrased in this section, and Kaneyuki stated he would have preferred more description, because utilizing force has to be “reasonable.”
Attorney Hatton guided the court to page 37 of the DOJ 2020 recommendations, where DOJ stated the tactic of “overwhelming use of force” was unique to the Sacramento Police Department.
“Is it true that overwhelming use of lethal force was a unique tactic (for the) Sacramento Police Department?” asked attorney Hatton, and Capt. Kaneyuki said he was unsure whether other departments used similar tactics.
Attorney Hatton questioned Captain Kaneyuki on how officers were trained on less lethal weapons in 2020, and the SPD officer confirmed they were trained on policy number 580.02, identified by Hatton as a “Crowd Management Powerpoint” that Kaneyuki said was presented to officers in 2020 after the George Floyd protests.
Attorney Hatton asked why it was important to train on Antifa, citing the PowerPoint, and the captain noted because the department was dealing with Antifa.
Attorney Hatton questioned the source citation for a statement written on the PowerPoint, which stated “hundreds of officers were injured during violent George Floyd protests.”
Captain Kaneyuki stated the numbers were based on national details, not local.
