Banks-Reed et al. v. Bay Area Rapid Transit et al.

Civil rights violation

Northern District of California

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers

$7.2 million

John Burris

Plaintiffs' Lawyers: Law Offices of John L. Burris, John L. Burris, Benjamin Nisenbaum, Alejandra M. Ramirez, Lateef H. Gray, now with the San Francisco District Attorney's Office

Defense Lawyers: Allen, Glaessner, Hazelwood and Werth LLP, Dale L. Allen Jr., Patrick D. Moriarty, Kevin P. Allen

An Oakland federal jury in March awarded $5.986 million to the children of a man who was shot and killed by a BART police officer.

The jury awarded $5.375 million for a federal civil rights violation to the estate of Sahleem Tindle as well as $611,456 in a state wrongful death violation.

The Jan. 3, 2018 shooting by Officer Joseph Mateu III prompted a criminal inquiry, which ended when Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O'Malley filed no charges against him.

But Tindle's mother filed a civil complaint. The first trial ended in a hung jury before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, but the second one concluded with a plaintiffs' verdict. Banks-Reed et al. v. Bay Area Rapid Transit et al., 18-CV05755 (N.D. Cal., filed Sept. 19, 2018).

Benjamin Nisenbaum, an attorney with the Law Offices of John L. Burris of Oakland, said Mateu made a mistake when he arrived at a physical altercation between Tindle and another man, Rayvell Newton, near the West Oakland BART station.

The men were struggling over a gun, and two shots had been fired. One went through the window of a nearby barber shop, while the other wounded Newton.

Ben Nisenbaum

The main issue at trial was whether Tindle, who was with his two children, was surrendering at the time Mateu shot him three times in the back, and whether the officer should have waited longer before firing.

"He was obviously surrendering," Nisenbaum said in a phone interview. "There was no reason to shoot him. The cop blatantly misperceived what happened."

The jury agreed Tindle -- who had raised an empty left hand -- was surrendering, the attorney said, resulting in the award on the federal civil rights violation under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

Dale L. Allen Jr., a partner with Allen, Glaessner, Hazelwood and Werth LLP in San Francisco who represented BART, said Mateu had to make a decision within three seconds after arriving on the scene about whether Tindle was surrendering or preparing to shoot.

The defense lawyer said Mateu fired because Tindle didn't drop the gun and because his right hand was still hidden from the officer.

Mateu "shot because [Tindle] didn't drop the gun," Allen said.

On the state violation, the jury concluded Tindle was 68% at fault for his own death and held Mateu 32% responsible.

BART has filed an appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and briefs are due this spring.

Allen said the main issue on appeal will be the defense argument for qualified immunity.

Gonzalez Rogers rejected his post-trial argument for qualified immunity, ruling the case should have been tried -- as it was -- by a jury.

"The legal nature of the inquiry here is not difficult," she wrote in September. "In civil society, police officers are not allowed to shoot people in the back while they are trying to surrender."

-- Craig Anderson