Facts

In 2006, plaintiffs Karene Beecham and Karena Crankson, sisters, were driving with their children in West Sacramento, when they were pulled over by West Sacramento police officers in a "high-risk" stop. After being detained for a period of time, they were released and given a traffic citation.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Beecham and Crankson contended that their civil rights were violated when they were wrongfully arrested at gunpoint during the traffic stop.

Plaintiffs were driving with their children on a sightseeing trip. Plaintiffs are African American, from Ghana, Africa. After they made a lane change without signaling, Ms. Beecham was unaware of an officer trying to pull her over, and did not pull over for 3-4 blocks. Ms. Beecham and Crankson were pulled over by defendant Officer Timothy Twardosz. Three other officers arrived when Twardosz radioed that the sisters were high risk. Beecham and Crankson were held at gunpoint by four officers, ordered to lift their shirts, handcuffed by defendants Ed Hensley, Geoffrey Albert and Steven Godden of the defendant West Sacramento Police Department, and placed in the back of a patrol car for 20-25 minutes, while their infants were left in their car unattended in 90 degree heat. Beecham and Crankson were eventually released and allowed to drive away after being given their traffic citation.

Despite defendants' arguments that these two mothers driving with their children posed some potential or speculative threat, all defendant officers testified that neither of the women ever did anything that was actually threatening. All defendants also admitted that the only reason they performed this high-risk stop was because the primary officer radioed that the car was "failing to yield." The defendants' police practices expert agreed that at the time this high-risk stop was called in, there was no justification for the use of high-risk tactics, including holding the women at gunpoint.

The district court ruled that due to the use of guns, handcuffs, and placing both women in police cars, plaintiffs were arrested as a matter of law. Officers agreed there was no probable cause to arrest the passenger, Ms. Crankson. The district court entered partial summary judgment for the passenger on her claims for false arrest and excessive force, then at trial entered judgment as a matter of law for plaintiffs, finding that both plaintiffs were subjected to excessive force and that the passenger was also falsely arrested. Judgment was entered for both plaintiffs under section 1983 and section 52.1

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants denied that plaintiffs' civil rights were violated. Defendants contended that there was probable cause to detain the plaintiffs and that proper procedures were followed.

The two plaintiff were in a vehicle on 5th Street in West Sacramento going north towards C Street, a known high crime area. The driver, Mrs. Beecham, suddenly changed lanes without signal in front of a West Sacramento Police car causing the officer to slam on his brakes. She then, again illegally, changed lanes at which time the officer called dispatch and advised that he was going to stop the vehicle. At the same time, he turned on his overhead red light and when the vehicle did not stop, he engaged his siren with short blasts. The vehicle traveled for approximately two blocks and turned right on C Street, ignoring both the light and the siren. Rather than pull over and stop in a safe place (there were many), the vehicle slowed to about 15 miles per hour, approximately half the posted speed limit, which according to law enforcement experience indicates that the passengers could be loading weapons or hiding contraband. When the Beecham auto reached 3rd and C, the officer engaged all of his overhead lights and full siren.

The Beecham vehicle proceeded onto the I Street Bridge and suddenly stopped in the middle of the bridge, a dangerous place where evidence indicated criminals often discard weapons or drugs or attempt to escape by foot. The officer testified that Mrs. Beecham then stepped out of the car and began screaming at him. By hand signal, he directed her to go to the next intersection and turn left on Jiboom. Instead, she went to the next intersection and turned right stopping only when she came to a stop light at 3rd and J. Because of the bizarre behavior of the Beecham vehicle and its driver, all of the officers had good reason to believe that a high-risk stop was necessary so they could determine whether the occupants of the car posed a safety threat.

They then conducted the high-risk stop using the procedure taught in almost all California police academies. Using that procedure, the two passengers were cleared, as was the vehicle. As soon as the vehicle was cleared, the driver and passenger were released with the driver being cited. At no time were the children in the vehicle ever in danger. The entire incident from start to finish lasted 31 minutes.

In contrast to plaintiff counsel's contention that defendant officers testified that the plaintiffs did not act in a threatening manner, two of the four officers testified that Mrs. Beecham did act in a threatening manner, which they observed. Furthermore, all the officers supported Officer Twardosz in determining to conduct a high-risk stop, as did the defense expert.

The high-risk stop procedure was developed to protect the safety of law enforcement officers as well as the public. During the trial, it was established that tragically every year a large number of police officers, men and women, are killed in the line of duty. Thirty percent of those deaths are caused during traffic stops. (Recall the recent slaying of two police officers in Oakland.) Law officers are entitled to protect their own safety, as well as being under a duty to protect the safety of the public. This procedure is aimed at those objectives. Racial discrimination had nothing to do with it. The first officer did not learn that Mrs. Beecham was an African American until she stepped out of her car on the I Street Bridge and screamed at him. The other officers did not learn the race of the occupants until they arrived at the scene of the stop. In fact, a claim of racial profiling by these two women was dismissed by their attorney before trial when it was clear that there was no evidence to support such a claim.

Damages

According to defense counsel, plaintiffs sought $1,800,000 and punitive damages. According to plaintiffs' counsel, plaintiffs' settlement demand was $200,000 per plaintiff, plus reasonable civil rights attorneys fees and costs (approx. $337,000 before trial), after partial summary judgment was entered for plaintiff Crankson.

Result

The court entered directed verdict for plaintiffs, in favor of plaintiff Beecham on her excessive force claim, and in favor of plaintiff Crankson on her false arrest and excessive force claims. The jury awarded damages in the amount of $11,700 for Beecham and $21,700 for Crankson. The jury rejected the claim for punitive damages.

Other Information

Plaintiffs' motions for civil penalties under Cal. Civil Code Section 52.1, for injunctive relief, and for attorneys' fees and costs are pending.