SACRAMENTO, CA – A federal bench trial began Monday at the Robert T. Matsui Courthouse in an effort to decide if the Sacramento Police Dept. violated protestors’ constitutional rights during the 2020 George Floyd and other racial justice/policy brutality demonstrations.
Protestors—who have already settled a civil claim for damages—seek injunctive relief to force changes to Sacramento Police policies, arguing officers used excessive force and targeted racial justice demonstrators while treating far-right protestors with restraint.
The Vanguard has been following this civil rights lawsuit, previously reporting plaintiffs had filed an amended complaint detailing how “the plaintiffs’ Constitutional right to assemble and protest were violated by Sacramento Police Department.”
Following this hearing the City of Sacramento agreed to pay a $350,000 settlement resolving monetary claims but setting the foundation for a bench trial starting Monday to explore altering the department policies.
Judge John A. Mendez began court by going over three motions filed by the plaintiffs in February.
Judge Mendez approved one of the three motions explaining his denial to both motions which addressed testimony and limiting expert testimony for the defense were “too broad,” stating it would be “much more efficient (for either side) to object once presented.”
Opening statements were presented from the plaintiffs by Civil Rights Attorney Emily Rose Johns, who provided background information describing racial justice protestors who gathered in Sacramento following the murder of George Floyd.
Sacramento Police responded with “militaristic force” shooting “rubber bullets, tear gas” and using batons “with no warning” to protestors, explained Rose Johns.
The attorney charged this was not the first time Sac PD responded with force during a civil rights protest, citing the force response used by Sac PD in the 2016 Mike Brown protests and the 2018 Stephon Clark protests (Clark was killed by two Sacramento police officers).
Attorney Rose Johns stated that during “Stop the Steal protests” put on by far right protestors following former President Joe Biden’s election, Sac PD responded differently acting in a “polite and professional” manner.
But, added Rose Johns, it was a different response toward racial justice demonstrators, where excessive force and retaliation violated the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution. She noted the plaintiffs would be citing five George Floyd protests that demonstrated excessive force.
Judge Mendez interrupted to question what Rose Johns meant by stating the George Floyd protests were “largely peaceful.”
Civil Rights Attorney Rose Johns explained this meant the plaintiffs present did not see or participate in looting or violent acts.
Judge Mendez also queried Rose Johns if there was specific evidence of crowd number differences between both protests.
Attorney Rose Johns stated, “I could not tell the court exact numbers,” but said there was a large presence. She explained they had evidence to prove Sac PD officers were instructed differently in how to respond to the protests, categorizing the racial justice protests as “Antifa” and “Anti-police” and training and response for such protests are different.
Police came in shoving with batons with no dispersal order, implementing “immediate use of force that was unjustified,” claimed Rose Johns, who cited plaintiffs’ injuries, noting one plaintiff was shoved into a vehicle, another was shot with a bean bag, and one sustained a broken finger.
She maintained to the court that police, without issuing orders or warnings, were shooting at protestors who had their hands up.
Rose Johns showed three video clips. The first was a 15-second video demonstrating the manner in which the officers moved in on May 29 shoving protestors.
After the second video taken on May 31 on J Street, Judge Mendez stated he could not hear very clearly, and Rose Johns replied that testimony would agree with his comment noting protestors could not hear dispersal orders and there was an excessive amount of shooting. The final video was on May 31 on K Street through L Street.
After the last video Judge Mendez stated, “I assume all traffic was blocked?”
Rose Johns replied, “No your honor, it’s not fair to assume,” adding some videos show cars driving through on the evening of the J Street protest.
Judge Mendez questioned if any of these demonstrations required a permit.
Civil Rights Attorney Rose Johns explained there was a permitting process but it was not required and people have a “Constitutional right to gather and demonstrate without a permit.” The lack of permit, she continued, should not affect the way that law officials respond.
“Are there other protests compared here besides ‘Stop the Steal Protest’?” asked Judge Mendez.
Rose Johns stated the court would have the opportunity to compare the police response to those two protests and they were focusing on officer training for both protests.
Protesters were detained and officers told them, “This is what accountability looks like,” noted Attorney Rose Johns.
Rose Johns emphasized the comparison of training between both the racial justice protest and the proud boys protest, stating evidence would show officers were told the proud boys carry knives for protection while “Antifa” carry them for violence.
The plaintiffs’ attorney also noted Sarah Butler would be testifying with statistical analysis proving racial justice protestors “were between eight to nine times more likely to experience violence” over “Stop the Steal” protestors.
Judge Mendez noted since the protests city police manuals have been updated and questioned how the plaintiffs were going to prove this was a threat to future injury.
Attorney Rose Johns insisted discrimination, lack of discipline, and officer testimony would show this issue went beyond policy.
Senior Deputy City Attorney Sean Richmond then responded, noting while the plaintiffs’ focus was on Sac PD conduct, all had all been resolved and damages were financially compensated.
Judge Mendez responded there had been no resolution on liability.
Richmond further claimed the Floyd protests and the “Stop the Steal” protests were one of a kind and the magnitude of the Floyd protests has not occurred since.
Judge Mendez questioned if the evidence would show there would be no future substantial risk of a similar protest in 2025, and Senior Deputy City Attorney Richmond said no.
Richmond said the “size and magnitude of the protests had nothing to do with policy but response,” adding Sac PD had to request aid from neighboring cities as the George Floyd protests were occurring at different places at the same time.
Richmond argued these protests “were not largely peaceful” and the “city was experiencing chaos.”
Senior Deputy City Attorney Richmond played a short video for the court. He stated this video demonstrated a plaintiff was not conducting himself peacefully at many times, “making threats” to the officers.
The city legal counsel claimed force was used after dispersal orders were given and officers are legally allowed to use force after orders were given over bull horns or police vehicle radio.
Richmond said the crowd was angered by police presence, and suggested stated misconduct was not due to a lack of training but an isolated incident.
“They are requesting something from you (the judge) that you can’t give to them. They are asking you to draft police policy, Richmond said to Judge Mendez.
City Attorney Richmond stated evidence would show the department adopted many of the Department of Justice’s suggestions and Sac PD has done revisions of manual requests to change policy.
Senior Deputy City Attorney Richmond concluded the request for a permanent injunction by the plaintiffs was “extraordinary” and they cannot establish that they are still in harm’s way.
Judge Mendez stated the bench trial will resume from March 26-28.
