Facts

Around midnight on June 3, 2015, plaintiff Trinidad Brown was operating his vehicle, heading southbound on Wilson Way in the City of Stockton. At this time, two officers of the Stockton Police Department initiated a traffic stop of Brown for allegedly making an unsafe lane change. Brown complied quickly and pulled over near a street light.

The lead officer approached Brown's vehicle and asked Brown for his license, registration and proof of insurance. Brown provided the lead officer with his license and proof of insurance but was unable to locate his registration. The lead officer ordered Brown to continue to look for his registration. He also informed Brown that if his license check came back clear, which it did, he would be let go without a ticket. Brown was calm during this entire exchange. At this time, the second officer took and remained in a customary cover position by the rear passenger side of Brown's vehicle for safety purposes. The lead officer then walked away from Brown's vehicle to look up Brown's driver's license.

Two other Stockton Police Department officers then arrived at the scene after learning through dispatch that this routine traffic stop had been initiated. One of those additional officers was Officer Eric Howard ("Howard"). Howard approached Brown's vehicle and when doing so passed the lead officer. He did not ask the lead officer what was going on or seek any information or briefing regarding the situation and the circumstances of the traffic stop including why Brown had been pulled over.

After the lead officer walked away from Brown's vehicle, Brown began searching for his registration as ordered. Howard saw that the second officer, in his cover position, did not draw his firearm or give Brown any commands with respect to Brown searching for his registration. In fact, at no time did the cover officer draw his firearm or perceive any risk from Brown. Howard remained ignorant of the details of the traffic stop and sought no information from either officer. Instead, while Brown was speaking with the second officer who was on the passenger side of the vehicle, Howard snuck up on Brown on the driver side and put the barrel of his firearm to Brown's head. Howard did so unannounced, without identifying himself, without giving any verbal commands and without warning.

When he put his firearm to Brown's head, Howard did not command him to exit the vehicle. Instead, Howard stated that Brown was under arrest for fidgeting. Scared that he was about to be shot, Brown volunteered that he was not going to get out. He claimed that he did nothing wrong and was complying with the lead officer's order to look for his registration. Howard then holstered his firearm and went to draw his taser. Still in fear of being shot, Brown turned on his vehicle's electrical system and began rolling up his windows. Howard then drew his taser with the safety off and wedged it in the opening in the driver side window.

Howard held his taser two to three inches from Brown's head and threatened that he would tase Brown in the face if he did not exit the vehicle. Brown then stated that he felt he should not have to get out and felt there was no reason why. He explained to Howard that he was searching for his registration as ordered by Officer Villalobos. Howard responded by tasing Brown in dart-mode almost immediately. The force of the voltage knocked him into the passenger seat causing him to fall over. The entirety of the encounter between Howard and Brown, including both the use of Howard's firearm and his taser, lasted a matter of seconds.

After Brown was tased, Brown was arrested under Pen. Code § 148(a)(1) for resisting arrest. Brown was prosecuted through trial on the § 148(a)(1) charge and was ultimately acquitted. Brown did not suffer significant injuries as a result of the tasering.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Brown contended that Officer Howard used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment when he pointed his gun at Brown on the routine traffic stop and also when he tasered him for not exiting his vehicle. Brown contended that Officer Howard tasered Brown in retaliation for Brown telling him he did not think he should have to exit his vehicle in violation of Brown's First Amendment right to free speech. Brown contended that Howard lied about what happened and falsified the events in his police report to support his narrative that he believed that Brown was going for a gun and that the tasering was justified.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: The defense contended that Howard drew his gun and held it down by his side but did not point it at Brown's head. The defense further contended that Brown dove toward his passenger seat and appeared to be reaching under his seat for a weapon when Howard discharged his taser. As such, the tasering was justified.

Injuries

Minor puncture wounds from the taser barbs/darts.

Result

The case settled for $235,000.

Other Information

There was no body worn camera footage or other objective evidence to prove what actually happened. Brown talked to approximately 30 other attorneys, who all declined his case, before finding the Piccuta Law Group who agreed to represent him.