Judge dismisses executives’ excessive force lawsuit against Ventura County

U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner has dismissed a civil suit against Ventura County arising from a raid on the homes of two executives who sought damages for tactics they described as unnecessarily heavy-handed and violations of their civil rights.

Dean Poe and David Wirsing, executives of Santa Clara Waste Water, were prosecuted in connection with the company’s disposal of hazardous waste that resulted in an explosion. After the accident in which 18 people were injured, Poe and Wirsing’s family homes were raided by a DA Special Response Team, which employed weapons, equipment and training comparable to that of a SWAT team, attorneys said.

After their arrests, Poe and Wirsing were subjected to a strip search, which their attorneys said was outside of county policies. The suit claimed unreasonable, excessive force, retaliation, political discrimination, assault, infliction of emotional distress, and false imprisonment. Poe v. County of Ventura, 16-CV6083 (C.D. Cal., filed Aug. 15, 2016).

“This is a very important civil rights case, involving egregious police abuse, said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley School of Law, at the time the suit was filed. “The allegations in the complaint, which I have read, point to a very serious abuse of government power.”

Klausner, a Central District judge, did not agree. In response to claims that the strip search was unconstitutional, the decision said, “The court finds no triable issue with respect to the County’s policies and procedures… These facts however, show only that there are deputies who have violated County policies. The evidence does not show that the policy itself is unconstitutional.”

The excessive show of force claims in the search of Wirsing and Poe’s homes were also dismissed.

Audio and video recordings, Klausner wrote, showed that Strategic Response Team members did not point guns at family members or detain them, and the judge concluded that officers acted reasonably.

“We are disappointed by the trial court’s decision,” said Stephen G. Larson of Larson O’Brien LLP, who represents the plaintiffs. “It is hard to fathom a legal or moral rationale for communal body cavity searches of people who were never slated for housing in jail, searches conducted in plain view of co-workers.”

“Although we are still considering all options, at this point we intend to file an appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals,” he added.

Defense attorney Eugene P. Ramirez of Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramire & Trester LLP did not respond to a request for comment.