The Details: Story #3

The Full Story:

#3

Officers Paul Tassone and Bruce Smith

                                                                        

Police misconduct?  You be the judge.

Officers: Paul Tassone and Bruce Smith

Department: Sacramento Sheriff Department

I pulled up to the gym and parked.  About 5 minutes later, 2 police officers approached my vehicle.  This is what happened next...

00:12

Officer Tassone: Keep your hands where we can see them (both officers have their weapons drawn)
Officer Tassone:  Keep your hands where we can see them
Me: Did I do something wrong?
Officer Tassone: Step out of the vehicle please
Me: Did I do something wrong?
Officer Tassone: Step out of the vehicle please
Officer Smith: Step out
Stepping out of the car
Officer Smith: Walk back to me and face that way
Officer Smith: Face that direction and walk back to me
Me: Face what direction?
Officer Smith: That direction…face forward and walk back to me…
[I close my car door]
Officer Smith: keep walking…keep walking…keep walking…stay right there
Officer Tassone: Do you have any identification?
Me: um…if I did something wrong sure…
Officer Tassone:  In California, if a police officer asks you for identification, you are required to give it.
Me: um, actually, I have read otherwise…I’ve read that…
Officer Tassone:  well, I am not going to debate the law…case law…you either give me some ID or you go to jail
Officer Smith: We will figure it out there
Officer Tassone: we’ll figure it out…
Me: I mean…well…that will have to be the case.
Officer Tassone: okay
Me: This is my second time going through this
Officer Tassone: okay…step behind your car
[Officer Tassoni is going towards my car and the door opens]
Me: Please don’t go in my car
Officer Tassone: You’re refusing to give identification we have a right to know who you are
Me: okay, but also the law says…is…is…the stop and identify law is that…unless I’m… [I am nervous because I have a gun on me]
Officer Tassone: Are you an attorney?
Me: um, actually my father is
Officer Tassone:  Well…are you an attorney
Me: so, I don’t have to identify myself unless you guys…um…unless I have committed a crime…
Officer Smith:  no that is not true
Me: or unless I am a suspect of a crime…That is the Terry Law…
Officer Smith: That is not true…turn around…turn around …put your hands behind your back…
Officer Tassone: You are not under arrest, you are being detained
Me: for what?
Officer Smith: So we can find out who you are…
Me: what do you need to know who I am for?...This is an arrest… I’m being arrested…
Officer Smith: No it is not an arrest…
Me: Actually…actually, I actually have a case against the police department…this is the second time you guys did this to me.  This is the second time…I am on my way to the gym and guys arrested me…I don’t know what I did wrong…
[In the background you can hear another patrol car speaking through his megaphone…he is directing the driver to make a right.  I have a theory on what is going on here in Sacramento, but I will reserve that for later…]
Both Officers: we are not arresting you
Me: this is an arrest…you are putting handcuffs on me…I am under arrest…
Officer Tassone: Turn around
Me: What did I do wrong?
Officer Tassone: Turn around
Me: turn around where? Turn around where?
Officer Tassone: right there…
Me: what is your name?
Officer Tassone: Tassone
Me: Tassoni and Smith…what is this the Sheriff’s department?  You have a badge number? What is your badge number?
Officer Tassone: unintelligible…
Me: so you guys are going to go through my car?
Officer: yeah we are
Me: for what?  I am going to the gym.  Are you doing that to all the cars around here? 
Officer: unintelligible [he was telling me that he approached another car in the parking lot also]
Me: I sat and watched it…no you did not…
2:53
[Patrol car door closes…I am in the patrol car for about 20 minutes] 
6:25
Me: unintelligible [I am still in back of the patrol car, I think this is when they take the handcuffs off of me]
6:39
Officer Tassone: ma’am put your hands down…put your hands down…you’re not getting out of the car…you’re staying in the car…put your foot… [I am asking them why they are detaining me and am trying to get out of the patrol car]
Me: unintelligible
Officer Tassone: because you are violent and …put your foot in the door…no…you are being detained…
10:27
The officers call in my tags…most of conversation is unintelligible…
25:08
Me: You dumb fucks…I can’t wait…you went into the gym to embarrass me… ya’ll asked them do I have a membership here…is that what ya’ll did?
Officer Smith: yeah…and you don’t
Me: Is that what ya’ll did?
Officer Tassone: yup, and you don’t
(FYI: I do have a membership…the officers spelled my name wrong)
Me: yes I do have a membership here…you dumb fucks…yes I do…
Officer Smith:  So you can’t be parked here…
Me: No, I can park here because I do have a membership
[FYI: there is a Subway, IHOP, Round Table (pizza restaurant), Baskin Robbins, and other stores in the strip]
Officer: Go…get in the car (unintelligible)
Me: no I am not going anywhere you dumb fucks…I am not going anywhere…
Officer: unintelligible
Me: well do what you have to do…I do have a membership…now you are going  to tell me I do not have a membership in the gym…yes I do have a membership at the gym…
[The officers drive off…end of recording]

Here is what Officers Bruce Smith and Paul Tassone of the Sacramento Sheriff's department reported in their event log:

"Officers were driving in a parking lot and observed several vehicles parked in a dimly lit parking lot on the south side of 24 Hour Fitness.  Officers approached a white sedan with one occupant.  As officers approached the vehicle the driver appeared to put something behind her back.  Officers told driver to place her hands in view and the subject, immediately became confrontational and refused to identify herself.  For our safety we asked the occupant to exit the car.  The female subject, later identified as ********* starting yelling that we were violating her civil rights and that she already had a civil case against our department.  Subject increased her loud yelling and she was handcuffed and detained in the backseat of the patrol car.  Once in the back seat handcuffs were removed and subject was detained until we could verify her identity.  Subject stated she was in the parking lot to go to the gym.  Did not have a membership at the 24 Hour Fitness.  Subject refused to cooperate in any fashion with officers.  Subject released."

Even if the officers’ account were true, it is still illegal.  Police are not legally allowed to just stop, handcuff, and point a gun at whoever they want.  There has to be probable cause and some type of legal justification for their behaviors.  They also had no legal reason to handcuff me and detain me in their vehicle.  I was/am not violent.  They had no interest in investigating innocent behaviors, as per the role of a polcie officer, they did not care what I had to say.  This is not the first time I have been illegally detained for simply enjoying my Constitutional rights.  In the video at about 1:55, you can hear another officer with a megaphone directing another driver.  They are looking for people to arrest and make money for the city.  Does Sacramento have quotas??? Why would the officer lie? Their jobs depend on you; they eat and send their kids to school off of you so there is a vested interest: a special concern or stake in maintaining or influencing a condition, arrangement, or action especially for selfish ends.  The police has no intention to eradicate crime; they need crime.  When I was illegally arrested, the public defender, police, jail, judge, towing company, car window replacer (I will explain in later post), district attorney, and various other groups benefited from my illegal arrest. 

On March 26, 2011, I filed a complaint with Internal Affairs.  I was told there was no Internal Affairs issue and they forwared my complaint to the Department (whatever that means).  I was contacted by Sergeant Jeana Zwolinski.  Sergeant Zwolinski, of the Sacramento Sheriff's Department said the officers followed policy and I was detained because they witnessed me reach for something in my back seat so they thought I had a weapon.  She said that my experience was not an Internal Affairs issue and the officers said I was belligerent and violent (you can be the judge of that).  She said it was totally okay for an officer to approach an innocent citizen for whatever reason they wanted.  She then said that I had to give the officers my identification even though I did nothing wrong.  I challenged all of her mistakes of the law and she asked me why do I think I know more than an officer who has several years of training.  I told her that the several years of training makes my experience even more disturbing.  Sergeant Jeana Zwolinski told me that I was forced out of my car at gun point to protect the officer's safety.  So, I asked why it was okay they put my life at risk and their lives are not more important than mine!  If they would follow the law, then I would have never been put in that situation. 

This is my 3rd complaint in the past 7 months.  I think it is interesting that all of the sudden, I am a criminal.  The problem is, I don't know what to stop doing so I can stop having my rights violated by people who are suppose to protect me.  I have never been pulled over nor have I ever even received a ticket.  Yet, I have been illegally detained 3 times and illegally arrested once here in California.  I have a theory on what the police are doing.  They are feigning work.  They look for people who they think look like a criminal; they will run their name, and claim to have witnessed the person committing a similar crime to the one previously accused of.  Just like a bully...they seek out a easy victim.  The person will have a hard time beating those charges. Who is going to believe all of the officers are lying?   My only recourse is to file a complaint with Professional Standards who does nothing and to accidentally leave my recorder on...oops...

I will blog about the other incidents at a later date.  These blogs are already written and are scheduled to post automatically.  I have filed several complaints with several people and no one cares.  I have asked for help from the District Attorney, Grand Jury, Attorney General, 2 Legislators, FBI, a couple of news outlets, and a couple of community agencies...NOTHING!  No one cares.  So I have to help myself.  The District Attorney (whose name I will release on another post) told me they don't go after officers for lying in police reports and assaulting citizens unless it involves a shooting.  The FBI said they do not investigate officers for police misconduct and police brutality.  He refused to give me his name and simply told me he was the person who always answers these types of calls.  All names will be released soon.

Police Misconduct? The department says this is procedure...what do you think?

A Clear Abuse of Power?

Story #3

While sitting in my car preparing to go into the gym, I was approached by 2 officers with their guns drawn.  I still do not know why I was detained/arrested.  I filed a complaint and the department told me that they were proud of the officers and everything was done according to procedure.  I know my rights and am familiar with police procedures; what they did to me was illegal.  They do not know I "may" have independent evidence corroborating my account of events.  The "investigative" sergeant started to change her story when I told her that she needs to tell the officers to be honest because I may have independent evidence.  Once I receive a written statement from the department, I will release all names and the department responsible. There is a lot more to this story so stay tuned, I will update this post Monday evening. 

The Law


Both the United States and California Constitution prohibit “unreasonable” searches and seizures of people, houses, and personal property.


A “search” occurs when a government officer infringes upon an expectation of privacy that society considers reasonable. (Jacobsen (1984) 466 U.S. 109, 113)
A “seizure” of a person occurs: (1) when a peace officer physically applies force or (2) when a person voluntarily submits to a peace officer’s authority. (Hodari D. (1991) 499 U.S. 621, 626; Turner (1994) 8 Cal. 4^th 137, 180.)

                                                                                                                      

“The Fourth Amendment is not violated unless a legitimate expectation of privacy is infringed.” (Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4^th 950, 979; Tyrell J. (1994) 8 Cal.th 68, 83.)
This infringement must be by the government or its agents…
”The Fourth Amendment addresses ‘misuse of power’, not the accidental effects of otherwise lawful government conduct.” (Brower (1989) 489 U.S. 593, 596, 597.)

When police deal with the public, the law will classify it as either a “consensual encounter,” a “detention,” or an “arrest.” 

Consensual Encounters

A “consensual encounter” is the least intrusive of these. A “consensual encounter” is a contact between an officer and an individual that is strictly voluntary.  The key element is that the person remains totally free to leave or not cooperate.  As long as a reasonable person would feel free to disregard the police and go about his or her business, the encounter is consensual and no reasonable suspicion is required on the part of the officer.” (Royer (1983) 460 U.S. 491, 497-499, 506; Hughes (202) 27 Cal.4^th 287, 327-328; Manuel G. (1997) 16 Cal.4^th 805, 821; Terrell (1999) 69 Cal. App.4^th 1246, 1253.)

On the other hand, if the officer starts exerting or asserting authority over the person—for example, by giving orders, demanding answers, displaying a weapon, using a harsh tone, telling him to stop doing X or to move to some other location, etc.—the contact will be viewed as a detention and it will be illegal unless supported by “reasonable suspicion.” (Manuel G. (1997) 16 Cal.4^th 805, 821; Terrell (1999)  69 Cal.App.4^th 1246, 1254; Miles (1987) 196 Cal. App. 3d 612, 616-617.)

Detention/Stops

A temporary “detention” or “stop” is an exertion of authority that is something less than a full-blown arrest but more substantial than a simple “contact” or “consensual encounter.”  A “detention” occurs whenever a reasonable—and innocent—person would believe he is not free to leave or otherwise disregard the police and go about his business. (Hodari D. (1991) 499 U.S. 621, 627-628; Bostic (1991) 501 U.S. 429, 434; Souza (1994) 9 Cal. 4^th 224, 229.) Such a belief may result from physical restraint, unequivocal verbal commands, or words or conduct by you that clearly relate to the investigation of specific criminal acts. (Brueckner (1990)  223 Ca;.App.3d 1500, 1505.) For instance, patting down someone constitutes a detention (Frank V. (1991( 233 Cal.App.3d 1232, 1240).  “A person id not ‘seized’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment unless he or she is somehow physically restrained or voluntarily submits to a peace officer’s authority.” (Arangure (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1302, 1307; Hodari D. (1991) 499 U.S. 621, 626; Turner (1994) 8 Cal.4^th 137, 180.)

The purpose of a detention is to resolve whether suspicious behavior is “innocent” or relates to a crime.  Therefore, “the possibility of an innocent explanation does not deprive the officer of the capacity to entertain a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.”

Reasonable Suspicion:

For an investigative stop or detention to be valid, you must have “reasonable suspicion”  that: (1) criminal activity may be afoot and (2) the person you are about to detain is connected with that possible criminal activity.  (Wardlow (2009) 528 U.S. 119; Ornelas (1996)  517 U.S. 690 , 695-696; Sokolow (1989) 490 U.S. 1, 7-8; Bennett (1998) 17 Cal.4^th 373, 386.)

To establish “reasonable suspicion,” both the quality and quanity of the information you need is considerably less than “probable cause” you need to arrest or search. (White (1990) 496 U.S. 325, 330; Bennett (1998) 17 Cal.4^th 373, 387; Johnson (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1, 11.)

The case law that allows police officers to get away with violating citizen’s rights:

“Reasonable suspicion” is evaluated based on objective facts.  The officer’s subjective thinking, i.e., the purpose behind the search or seizure (detention or arrest), should have no bearing on a court’s determination of the legality of the officer’s action.  The officer’s “subjective intentions” are irrelevant in determining whether a detention of an arrest was justified.  (See Sullivan (2001) 532 U.S. 769, 772; Whren (1996) 517 U.S. 806, 813; see also Robinette (1996) 519 U.S. 33, 38; Scott (1978) 436 U.S. 128, 138; Letner (2010) 50 Cal.4^th 99, 145.)   For example, if an officer rely on the wrong statute in detaining a suspect, his actions are not unlawful if the suspect’s actions were prohibited under a different statute. (McDonald (2006) 137 Cal.App.4^th 521, 530; Justin K. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4^th 695, 700.) If the suspect’s actions were not prohibited under any statute, then a detention will be unlawful.    I believe that this case law allows officers to be prejudice in performing their job.  I believe that the officers that have illegally detained me thought that I looked like a believable criminal and assumed that I had a criminal record.  If I did have a criminal record, they would claim to have witnessed me committing a crime when I had done nothing wrong.  The officers are feigning work and their illegal detention will be valid if they can find or make up something to support their illegal behaviors.  

A detention can never be based solely on a hunch, rumor, intuition, instinct, or curiosity.  (Wardlow (2000) 528 U.S. 119, 123-124; Tony C. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 888; Raybourn (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 308.) Rather, the officer must have specific facts justifying suspicion and he must be able to articulate them in court.  The court will then decide if these facts—based on the “totality of circumstances” including the officer’s training and experience—were enough to make the suspicion objectively reasonable. (Wright (1998) 206 Cal.App.3d 1107; Lloyd (1992) 4 Cal.App.4^th 724, 733.)

Arrests

An arrest occurs when you take a person into custody.  This requires either (1) that the officer physically restrain or at least touch the person or (2) that the person submits to the officer’s authority. (Pen. Code, § 835; Hodari D. (1991) 499 U.S. 621, 626; Turner (1994) 8 Cal.4^th 137, 180.)

In Atwater, (2001) 532 U.S. 318, if a detention for a cite-and-release traffic violation is prolonged to the point that the seizure becomes a de facto arrest, it could extend to an “unintentional” de facto arrest. 

Additional Information:

Penal Code 841

The person making the arrest must inform the person to be arrested of the 

intention to arrest him, of the cause of the arrest,

and the authority to make it, except when the person making the

arrest has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested

is actually engaged in the commission of or an attempt to commit an

offense, or the person to be arrested is pursued immediately after

its commission, or after an escape.

The person making the arrest must, on request of the person he is

arresting, inform the latter of the offense for which he is being

arrested.

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy:

Both the United States and California Constitutions guarantee everyone the right to be free from 

unreasonable governmental intrusion. This right is personal to every citizen.  It is illegal for an officer to physically enter into an area where a person has a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in order to conduct a search or for that purpose of seizing something unless: (1) there is a warrant; or (2) exigent circumstances exists; or the officer has obtained a valid consent. (Stoner (1964) 376 U.S. 483, 486-490; Jacobs (1987) 43 Cal.3d 472, 477-478; Wilson (1997) 59 Cal.App.4^th 1053, 1059; Conway (1996) 45 Cal.App.4^th 163, 172.)