Santa Cruz Et Al V City of San Jose Et Al Candce-20-00351 0001.0

Case 5:20-cv-00351-NC Document 1 Filed 01/16/20 Page 1 of 30
1 ROBERT R. POWELL, SBN 159747

POWELL & ASSOCIATES
2
925 W. Hedding Street
3 San Jose, CA 95126
T: (408) 553-0201 F: (408) 553-0203
4 E: [email protected]
5
Attorney for Plaintiffs
6
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 (San Jose Division)
11
12 MARISSA SANTA CRUZ, PAEA I'SUVA Case No.:

TUKUAFU,
13
Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION
14 OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES
v.
15
CITY OF SAN JOSE; [FNU] THOMPSON; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
16 SAUL ZEPEDA, and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
17
Defendants.
18
19
NATURE OF THE ACTION
20
21 1. Officers with the City of San Jose Police Department responded to a noise complaint at
22 the hotel room of Plaintiffs Marissa Santa Cruz, and Paea I'suva Tukuafu on May 18, 2019.
23
The couple was celebrating Marissa’s birthday. The officers acknowledged upon arrival, the
24
music the couple was playing was not that loud. In fact, it had been turned down immediately
25
upon a request by the hotel staff 30 minutes earlier.
26
27 2. Officers then demanded Plaintiffs provide their driver’s licenses / ID’s, despite no
28 lawful authority for doing so. Then, officers withheld the Plaintiffs’ licenses, telling Plaintiffs
______________________________________________________________________________________
1
Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights
Jury Trial Demanded
Santa Cruz v. City of San Jose
1 they were holding the licenses “hostage,” but when they would leave the hotel they would get
2
their licenses back.
3
3. Faced with such an ultimatum from fully armed police officers, Plaintiffs had no choice
4
but to go into their room to pack their belongings to leave.
5
6 4. However, once in the room and after the door had closed, the Defendants banged on the
7 door insisting that the door must remain open - though it had already been closed twice during
8
the encounter.
9
5. Once the door was opened again in response to their banging on the door, the officers
10
11 then entered the Plaintiffs’ room without consent.
12 6. Each of the officers was in full uniform – wearing sidearms, batons, pepper spray, and
13 tasers – including three who emerged from a hotel room next door to the Plaintiffs.
14
7. At least one of the officers from the hotel room next door was carrying a smokeless
15
powder riot-gun which shoots what are referred to as “sponge rounds” – oversized, non-metal
16
17 tipped projectiles. This riot-gun would shortly be used on the Plaintiffs.
18 8. The Plaintiffs then basically failed the officers’ “attitude test,” and the Defendants
19
proceeded to beat the Plaintiffs with batons, shoot them with sponge rounds, and hit them
20
with their tasers multiple times – seven (7) times in the case of Paea.
21
9. The Plaintiffs’ injuries were so serious they were transported by ambulance directly to
22
23 the hospital for evaluation before being booked and spending one night in jail. Criminal
24 charges were not filed – at least not before filing of the Government Tort Claim Notice with
25
the City of San Jose, which the City received on August 27, 2019.
26
10. The officers then falsified police reports submitted in support of their effort to have the
27
28
Plaintiffs convicted of Penal Code 148(b) Taking Officer’s Weapon, Penal Code 243(b)
______________________________________________________________________________________
2
Jury Trial Demanded
1 Battery on a Police Officer, Penal Code 69 Resisting/Obstructing an “Executive Officer,” and

2
Penal Code 602 Trespassing.
3
11. Defendants had no legal authority to, 1) demand the Plaintiffs’ identification, 2) evict
4
them from their hotel room, 3) hold Plaintiffs’ driver’s licenses “hostage” in order to force
5
6 their eviction from their hotel room, 4) enter the couple’s hotel room, or, 5) beat them
7 mercilessly with batons, rubber bullets, and tasers.

8
12. The City of San Jose and SJPD have a constitutionally deficient policy, practice, or
9
custom and/or non-existent or inadequate training, 1) on the existence and/or respecting of 4th
10
11 Amendment rights of hotel guests, 2) on what police officers can and cannot demand of
12 citizens in terms of identification, 3) on the use of coercion to accomplish objectives in

13 violation of constitutional rights, and, 4) on the use of force.
14
13. These constitutionally violative policies, practices, customs, and non-existent or
15
inadequate training processes lead to, and have led to, the injuries and violations of the
16
17 Plaintiffs’ rights complained of herein as described more fully below.
18 14. The City has failed to properly train, supervise and discipline officers for such conduct,
19
and as a result there is a culture within the police department of excessive use of force.
20
15. Plaintiffs Marissa Santa Cruz and Paea I'suva Tukuafu were victims of these policies,
21
and it led to their bodies being battered and bruised; they now seek damages for these
22
23 numerous violations of their constitutional rights.
24 JURISDICTION
25
16. The claims alleged herein arise pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the 4th Amendment to the
26
United States Constitution, and California Civil Code § 52.1 (Bane Act).
27
28
17. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343.
______________________________________________________________________________________
3
Jury Trial Demanded
1 VENUE
2
18. Venue is proper in the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)
3
because the unlawful acts, practices and omissions giving rise to the claims brought by
4
Plaintiffs occurred in the City of San Jose, which is within this judicial district.
5
6 PARTIES
7 19. Plaintiff Paea I'suva Tukuafu (“Paea”) was at all times complained of herein a resident
8
of San Jose, California.
9
20. Plaintiff Marissa Santa Cruz (“Marissa”) was at all times complained of herein a
10
11 resident of San Jose, California.
12 21. Defendant CITY OF SAN JOSE (hereinafter referred to as “CITY”) is and at all times
13 mentioned herein a municipal corporation, duly authorized to operate under the laws of the
14
State of California. Under its supervision, the CITY operates the San Jose Police Department
15
(“SJPD”).
16
17 22. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant (First Name Unknown) THOMPSON
18 (“THOMPSON”) was employed as a police officer for defendant CITY. THOMPSON is

19
sued individually and as a police officer for the CITY. By engaging in the conduct described
20
herein above, and below, THOMPSON acted under the color of law and in the course and
21
scope of his employment for Defendant CITY. By engaging in the conduct described here,
22
23 THOMPSON exceeded the authority vested in him as a police officer under the laws of the
24 State of California, and the 1st, 4th, and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
25
23. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant SAUL ZEPEDA (“ZEPEDA”) was employed
26
as a police officer for defendant CITY. ZEPEDA is sued individually and as a police officer
27
28
for the CITY. By engaging in the conduct described herein above, and below, ZEPEDA acted
______________________________________________________________________________________
4
Jury Trial Demanded
1 under the color of law and in the course and scope of his employment for Defendant CITY.
2
By engaging in the conduct described here, ZEPEDA exceeded the authority vested in him as
3
a police officer under the laws of the State of California, and the 1st, 4th, and 14th Amendments
4
to the United States Constitution.
5
6 24. There were not less than three (3) other responding officers on the scene, however
7 Plaintiffs do not know the identity of any of them, and so identifies them hereafter as
8
Defendants DOES 1 through 3. The initial officers knocking at the door to Plaintiff’s hotel
9
room were two (2) in number, and those were THOMPSON and ZEPEDA.
10
11 25. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and/or capacities of defendants sued herein as
12 DOES 1-10, inclusive, and therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs
13 will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.
14
26. Plaintiffs believe and allege that each of the DOE defendants is legally responsible and
15
liable for the incident, injuries and damages set forth herein either on account of their own
16
17 individual actions, or their integral participation in the decisions and actions taken on those
18 decisions that led to the violations of Plaintiffs rights set forth hereinbelow.
19
27. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants DOES 1-10 were employed by defendant
20
CITY. Defendants DOES 1-10 are sued individually and as employees for the CITY. By
21
engaging in the conduct described below, Defendants DOES 1-20 acted under the color of law
22
23 and in the course and scope of their employment for Defendant CITY.
24 28. Each Defendant proximately caused injuries and damages because of their negligence,
25
breach of duty, negligent supervision, management or control, violation of public policy
26
and/or excessive use of force. Each defendant is liable for his/her personal conduct, vicarious
27
28
or imputed negligence, fault or breach of duty, whether severally or jointly, or whether based
______________________________________________________________________________________
5
Jury Trial Demanded
1 upon agency, employment, ownership, entrustment, custody, care or control or upon any other
2
act or omission.
3
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
4
Plaintiffs Were In Their Hotel Room At The Holiday Inn on N. 1st St., San Jose
5
6 29. On May 18, 2019, Plaintiffs were staying at the Holiday Inn located at 1350 N. 1st St.,
7 San Jose, Ca.

8
30. The couple was celebrating Marissa’s birthday that weekend before they were to leave
9
on a family trip to Hawaii.
10
11 31. Plaintiffs had paid all required fees for rental of the hotel room and were lawful
12 occupants in said hotel room, with full expectations of privacy and dominion over their rented
13 space.
14
32. At approximately 8:45 p.m. on May 18th, the Plaintiffs were playing music in their
15
room, and the music was apparently loud enough for someone to make a noise complaint
16
17 because an unknown representative of the hotel came to the hotel room door and knocked.
18 33. Paea, who was far from fully clothed at the time, answered the door, but due to his state
19
of undress only opened it enough to speak to the person knocking on the door; he estimates at
20
most the door was open eight (8) inches.
21
34. The hotel representative (Liz) then said words to the effect of, “Turn down the music or
22
23 we’re going to have to kick you guys out.” Paea asked if the hotel would refund their fees if
24 they were to be kicked out. Liz said no, so Paea told her, “Ok, then I’m going to turn down
25
the music.”
26
35. Liz only came to the door this one time, and the Plaintiffs received no phone calls from
27
28
her or any other hotel representative in addition to this one-time discussion at the door.
______________________________________________________________________________________
6
Jury Trial Demanded
1 36. After responding to Liz, Paea then closed the door and walked the very short distance to
2
the device playing the music and immediately turned the music down.
3
37. Approximately one-half hour later, ZEPEDA and THOMPSON came to the door of the
4
hotel room and knocked on it.
5
6 38. Marissa first viewed the two through the peephole in the door, then opened the door of
7 the hotel room. Paea stepped more prominently in the door frame for the conversation with
8
the officers that would then ensue.
9
39. THOMPSON began explaining the “reason we’re here,” but Paea told him that he
10
11 “knew,” saying that they (hotel) had asked them to turn down the music, and they did turn
12 down the music.

13 40. THOMPSON said, “Yeah we heard the music from – coming from out here but it
14
wasn’t exceedingly loud.”
15
41. Paea responded, “Yeah, because we turned it back down.”
16
17 42. THOMPSON then continued, “Yeah, so here’s where we stand with this issue. Initially
18 they wanted to kick you out. But now we talked to them and said hey, if they agreed to keep it
19
down and there’s no more noise complaints for the rest of the night, they agreed to let you
20
stay.”
21
43. Paea said, “So when you guys walked over here the noise was good enough right?”
22
23 44. Thompson replied, “We could hear it, but it wasn’t – it wasn’t crazy.”
24 45. Paea said, “That was just me pressing it one down so yeah that’s the same thing that we
25
are talking about.”
26
27
28
______________________________________________________________________________________
7
Jury Trial Demanded
1 46. ZEPEDA then said, “Hey man can you do me a favor and just go ahead and step out
2
you’re not even in trouble, but I just want to talk to you out here.” Paea agreed and exited the
3
room and stepped into the hallway.
4
47. ZEPEDA then asked Paea, “Do you have any ID on you?”
5
6 48. Paea replied, “Why?”
7 49. ZEPEDA replied, “That’s what we do, we ID everybody.”

8
50. When Marissa interjected with, “What(?), no you don’t,” ZEPEDA responded, “Yeah,
9
that’s just what we do.”
10
11 51. Marissa pointed out they were already in the hotel, already gave the hotel their IDs, and
12 they can just ask the hotel staff for their identification information.
13 52. To that, THOMPSON interjected, “Ma’am, this can either go easily and you guys can
14
stay for the rest of the night or we can go the other route because what they said is ‘trespass
15
you,’ remove you from your room and I don’t want to do that.”
16
17 53. Marissa pointed out, “We paid to be here.”
18 54. THOMPSON said, “I understand that but if you violate policy when you signed that
19
agreement – violating the noise and getting noise complaints…”
20
55. At this point Paea asked THOMPSON, “But when you guys walked over here was it
21
really loud?”
22
23 56. THOMPSON replied, “I’m not talking about now…,” to which Paea responded, “So
24 okay we solved the problem,” and THOMPSON continued, “I’m talking about before.”
25
57. Paea said, “Obviously we’re old and we’ve learned so when they said it was loud we
26
turned it down, so that’s it right?”
27
28
______________________________________________________________________________________
8
Jury Trial Demanded
1 58. Paea then stated, “So you guys don’t need to check ID like this guy (gesturing in
2
direction of ZEPDA).”
3
59. ZEPEDA then told Paea, “Put your hand down.” Paea had merely gestured at the
4
officer – nothing violent, fast, disrespectful, or menacing at all.
5
6 60. After Paea pointed out how the officers had walked up and admitted to the Plaintiffs
7 that the music was cool and reiterated that he and Marissa are grown-ups who turned the
8
music down, he felt like that was all there was to the situation and it should be over.
9
61. However, THOMPSON stated, “All we’re saying is that if we come out here for a call
10
11 and you are violating the policy of the hotel – they wanted to press charges for trespassing
12 because they asked you to leave and you guys slammed the door in their face.”
13 62. The comment about, “slam[ming] the door in their face,” was so patently false that it
14
made Marissa burst into laughter.
15
63. There was not one single point during the entire interaction with the Defendants during
16
17 this initial conversation, or at any point thereafter, where either THOMPSON or ZEPEDA
18 asked the Plaintiffs their version of events with regard to the hotel representative coming to
19
the door.
20
64. There was a point – before the beating, tasing, and rubber bullet shooting yet to be
21
described – where Paea did say that he did not slam the door “in their face,” but simply
22
23 responded, “Ok, we got it,” when they came to the door and asked them to turn down the
24 music.
25
65. THOMPSON continued, “All I’m saying is we need to see your IDs, okay? After we
26
see your IDs . . .,” but before he finished, Paea said again, “You can go on down to them and
27
28
______________________________________________________________________________________
9
Jury Trial Demanded
1 tell them what is my name and everything…” obviously referring to going down to the hotel
2
front desk.
3
66. THOMPSON continued, “All I am asking for are your ID’s.” He followed that by
4
saying, “That’s our job.”
5
6 67. THOMPSON then tells the Plaintiffs, “And then as soon as I do that I’m going to let
7 you guys go back in your room and resume your night as long as you continue to not have any
8
noise complaints against you.”
9
68. Marissa declared to Paea “Let’s just get your ID,” and turned into the hotel room – she
10
11 had been inside the threshold at the doorway, door open, the entire time the conversation was
12 taking place in the hallway.

13 69. Marissa had in fact been holding the hotel door as far open as it could go, thus the
14
officers could readily see into the room. The Defendants could not have seen anything illegal
15
or in the nature of a weapon in the hotel room, because there was nothing illegal or in the
16
17 nature of a weapon in the Plaintiffs’ room nor in their personal possession.
18 70. Paea followed Marissa into the room and they closed the door and set about to locate
19
their IDs so they can provide them to THOMPSON and ZEPEDA.
20
71. In less than a minute after the Plaintiffs enter the room and close the door, THOMPSON
21
and/or ZEPEDA banged on the door while the Plaintiffs were in the process of locating their
22
23 IDs.
24 72. Within 10 (ten) seconds of the initial banging, Paea, with both his and Marissa’s IDs in
25
hand, opened the door and walked out into the hallway.
26
73. Paea exited the room and stepped back into the hallway, closing the door behind him.
27
28
______________________________________________________________________________________
10
Jury Trial Demanded
1 74. Marissa remained inside the room for a brief moment, found her ID, and then she
2
opened the hotel door.
3
75. Upon opening the door, the officers had already begun to run their personal information
4
through dispatch – requesting any prior criminal record information, probation or parole status
5
6 for the Plaintiffs.
7 76. Both Plaintiffs come back “clean” of any prior criminal complaints, probation, or
8
parole.
9
77. While waiting for the dispatch response, Paea asked ZEPEDA if in fact Liz told the
10
11 officers that the Plaintiffs had “slammed the door in her face.”
12 78. ZEPEDA replied that she had made that claim, and also said that they (Plaintiffs) had
13 then put the “deadbolt” on the door.
14
79. While still waiting for the dispatch response, the door of the hotel room next door
15
opened, and a man walks out followed by three police officers (DOES 1 – 3), who come down
16
17 the hall the short distance to the front door of the Plaintiffs’ hotel room.
18 80. Right about then, Paea politely asked for the IDs back from THOMPSON, who
19
responded, “No.”
20
81. Paea, a bit puzzled by the response, said “Well you already got the stuff (information
21
from the IDs)?”
22
23 82. The next comment from THOMPSON was, “Inside. I need you to grab your stuff.”
24 83. Paea said, “Boss, you already said if I give you the ID you gonna be cool with us.”
25
84. THOMPSON replied, “The agreement was that you would not violate the policies here
26
and you slammed the door in our face.”
27
28
______________________________________________________________________________________
11
Jury Trial Demanded
1 85. Paea stated, “You wanted the ID right …,” but THOMPSON pointed in the direction of
2
the men who had exited the room and said, “It doesn’t matter, they said they want you out.”
3
86. Again, THOMPSON repeated his, “This can go two ways” speech.
4
87. Paea then asked for his ID back. One of the DOE officers or THOMPSON said to Paea,
5
6 “We’re holding [your IDs] hostage until you leave.”
7 88. Though extremely upset, the Plaintiffs had no choice but under the circumstances of
8
now being confronted with five (5) fully armed police officers, to refuse to leave, thus they
9
went into the room to pack their bags and leave the hotel.
10
11 Defendants Unlawfully Enter The Hotel Room Without Consent And Shortly
Thereafter Begin Beating Plaintiffs With Batons, Striking Them With
12 Tasers And Shooting Paea With Rubber Bullets (a.k.a “Sponge Round”)
13 89. The couple turned and went into their room, closing the door behind them.
14
90. The door remained closed for approximately thirty (30) to (45) seconds, before one of
15
the officers again banged on the door saying, “San Jose Police Department! Open the door!”
16
17 91. Paea was consoling Marissa, who had started crying due to the way the police were
18 treating her, and both were now at least 10 feet away from the hotel door.
19
92. Paea went promptly to the door and opened it.
20
93. Plaintiffs are not certain which officer was at the door when he opened it, but whichever
21
officer it was told Paea words to the effect of, “I want you to keep the door open.”
22
23 94. In response to that comment, Marissa grabbed the hotel room ice bucket, and brought it
24 to the door and was beginning to attempt to place it down near the door jam in a position
25
where the door could not close fully.
26
95. But as she did that, the Defendant kicked the door with his foot, opening it all the way,
27
28
and said, “We need the door to be all the way open.”
______________________________________________________________________________________
12
Jury Trial Demanded
1 96. As he completed the kick of the door, his foot landed inside the hotel room, and he had
2
now entered the hotel room. He was flanked by at least two (2) of the five (5) (or more)
3
officers that had been in the hallway.
4
97. The Defendant who kicked the door then moved to a position fully inside the room,
5
6 holding the door and one or more of the other officers partially entered the room.
7 98. Before the beatings of the Plaintiffs described below commenced, at least three of the
8
Defendants were already in the hotel room.
9
99. Marissa finished packing in less than two (2) minutes and stood talking in strong terms
10
11 about the fact she was the daughter of a law enforcement officer and had a few different
12 relatives who were also law enforcement officers.

13 100. While Marissa was doing that, Paea was continuing to pack his items in a large duffle
14
bag.
15
101. Though the officers were not appearing to listen to anything Marissa said, they instead
16
17 began asking things of Paea. The person speaking was recognized by Plaintiffs based on the
18 patches/bars on his sleeve to have been a Sergeant. When Paea heard what he believed to be a
19
statement or question directed to him, he moved two steps to get to a place where he could see
20
the officer face to face. There was a jog in the wall initially blocking his view of the speaker.
21
102. Paea said, “How do you expect me to pack, if you’re over here talking to me, so why
22
23 don’t you shut the fuck up?” He returned to packing and was in the phase of ensuring that he
24 had found everything they had brought by scanning the room. He had already gathered up his
25
duffle bag in hand.
26
103. Suddenly, in apparent dislike of Paea’s comments, the officer Plaintiffs believe was a
27
28
Sergeant, told another of the Defendants – Plaintiffs are not certain which – “Tase him.”
______________________________________________________________________________________
13
Jury Trial Demanded
1 104. Marissa had been sitting but upon hearing these words she stood up and quickly moved
2
in a line between the officer who was pulling his taser and pointing it at Paea.
3
105. The Defendant Doe officer who discharged the taser did so immediately and struck
4
Marissa directly under her naval. She did not “go down” immediately, and more than one
5
6 officer came at her wielding batons and striking her on the front and the rear of her legs –
7 strikes that would later leave deep subcutaneous bruising, and she immediately fell to the
8
ground.
9
106. Paea did not see the taser hit Marissa, but he saw Marissa go to the ground and the
10
11 batons commencing the beating. He started to move toward her to throw his body over hers
12 and protect her from the assault.

13 107. Before Paea got more than a step or two in the direction of Marissa, who lay writhing
14
on the ground, he himself was shot at with a taser. However, he blocked – or at least believes
15
he may have blocked – the first taser shot with his duffle bag. Though, that may be the prong
16
17 that was later found near his neck/collarbone.
18 108. Immediately next, an unknown amount of the other officers unloaded on Paea with
19
multiple tasers and one or more began shooting Paea with “sponge rounds.” It is not known to
20
Plaintiffs at this time how many officers had completely entered the room at that point and
21
were engaging in the melee by either using batons, tasers, or sponge rounds; all were used.
22
23 109. The strikes hit Paea in all the following locations, 1) two in his thighs, 2) three that
24 ascended up the abdominal area, 3) one in the center of his chest, and, 4) one that was in his
25
right collarbone (and may have been the one he believed he had blocked with the duffle bag).
26
110. The multiple voltage pulses caused Paea to collapse to the ground, and one of the
27
28
officers immediately mounted Paea’s back with his knee.
______________________________________________________________________________________
14
Jury Trial Demanded
1 111. Paea, once he had recovered enough to speak, began immediately pleading with the
2
officer to remove his knee from his back, even expressly offering he place his knee on the
3
back of Paea’s neck.
4
112. Paea was loudly telling the officer he had a recent injury, and the Defendant’s knee was
5
6 inflaming the left side of his rib cage where he had suffered a rib fracture approximately three
7 (3) weeks earlier.

8
113. Paea was fully compliant with the officers while on the ground, where he remained until
9
the ambulance crew arrived with a gurney.
10
11 114. When Marissa went to the floor, for whatever reason, her dress had come up exposing
12 her bare buttocks.

13 115. At some point, Marissa was shot directly in the buttocks with a sponge round as well.
14
116. Marissa asked the Defendants several times to please move her dress down to cover her
15
buttocks.
16
17 117. Paea made the same request as well.
18 118. The officers instead let her remain in that condition with her bare buttocks exposed for
19
several minutes.
20
119. The officers would not allow either Paea or Marissa to get up off the ground.
21
120. The Plaintiffs remained on the ground for what they estimate to be ten (10) to fifteen
22
23 (15) minutes.
24 121. They got up when ambulance personnel arrived with gurneys.

25
122. So significant were their injuries, the Plaintiffs were transported directly to Santa Clara
26
Valley Medical Center.
27
28
______________________________________________________________________________________
15
Jury Trial Demanded
1 123. Plaintiffs then spent one night in jail and were released, and no criminal charges were
2
filed, though Plaintiffs are concerned about retaliation in the form of filing such charges due
3
to having already served a Government Tort Claim Notice (on 8/28/19 initially, followed by
4
an “amended” on 9/9/19).
5
6 124. CITY, by virtue of its policies, practices and customs, and/or issues related to non-
7 existent or inadequate training, which Plaintiffs contend were one or all a moving force
8
behind the conduct in violation of their rights by the individual Defendants, is a Defendant to
9
each of the alleged violations below (Monell liability) based on constitutional amendments,
10
11 but the CITY is not repeated in headers or body of the Claims for Relief, and instead the
12 subject of a separate Claim for Relief, wherein the facts related to said policies, practices and
13 customs, and/or issues related to non-existent or inadequate training are addressed fully.
14
DAMAGES
15
125. As a proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiffs suffered severe pain and
16
17 emotional distress, as indicated by immediate and persistent anxiety, fear, sleep disturbance,
18 loss of a sense of security, reduced dignity and pride, sleep disturbance, and both fear and
19
resentment of law enforcement personnel accompanied by a serious loss of trust in police
20
officers.
21
126. As a proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiffs suffered severe physical pain at
22
23 the time of the use of the tasers, batons, and rubber bullets, and the use of those items on
24 Plaintiffs left them with lingering deep tissue bruises, cuts, and significant abrasions to their
25
skin, leaving discoloration to their skin that will never subside.
26
27
28
______________________________________________________________________________________
16
Jury Trial Demanded
1 127. The conduct of the individual Defendants was malicious, sadistic, wanton, and
2
oppressive. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to award of punitive damages against the
3
Defendants, except the government entity CITY.
4
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
5
6 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

4th Amendment – Unlawful Entry, 42 U.S.C § 1983
7 (Plaintiffs v. Thompson, Zepeda, Does 1 – 10)
8
128. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the
9
preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
10
129. In doing the acts complained of herein, Defendants THOMPSON, ZEPEDA, and Does
11
12 1-10 acted under the color of the law to violate Plaintiffs Paea and Marissa’s basic human
13 dignity and right to be free from unreasonable entry/search of their rented hotel room under
14
the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
15
130. Defendants acted under color of law in entering the Plaintiffs’ hotel room without a
16
17
warrant, probable cause, consent, or exigency of any kind that would excuse obtaining a
18 warrant before intruding upon Plaintiffs’ zone of privacy.

19 131. The unlawful and unreasonable entry into the Plaintiffs hotel room and demands to keep
20
the door of their hotel room open, violated both the Plaintiffs 4th Amendment rights against
21
unreasonable entry/search, and the Plaintiffs 1st Amendment rights of privacy.
22
23 132. As a proximate result of defendants' malicious conduct, Plaintiffs suffered injuries and
24 damages as set forth in paragraphs 125-126.

25
133. The punitive damage allegations of paragraph 127 apply in this Claim for Relief to all
26
individuals named as Defendants.
27
//
28
______________________________________________________________________________________
17
Jury Trial Demanded
1 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

th
4 Amendment – Excessive Use of Force, 42 U.S.C § 1983
2
(Plaintiffs v. Thompson, Zepeda, Does 1 - 10)
3
134. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding
4
paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
5
6 135. In doing the acts complained of herein, Defendants THOMPSON, ZEPEDA, and DOES
7 1-10 acted under the color of the law to violate Plaintiffs Paea and Marissa’s basic human
8
dignity and right to be free from the use of excessive force under the 4th Amendment to the
9
United States Constitution.
10
11 136. Defendants acted under color of law in entering the Plaintiffs’ hotel room to subject
12 them to excessive force described hereinabove, thereby violating the Plaintiffs’

13 constitutionally protected rights.
14
137. As a proximate result of defendants' malicious and sadistic conduct, Plaintiffs suffered
15
injuries and damages as set forth in paragraphs 125-126.
16
17 138. The punitive damage allegations of paragraph 127 apply in this Claim for Relief to all
18 individuals named as Defendants.

19
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
20 4th & 14th Amendment – Seizure of Person / Property / Due Process, 42 U.S.C § 1983
(Plaintiffs v. Thompson, Zepeda, Does 1 - 10)
21
22
23
24
140. In doing the acts complained of herein regarding the taking and holding of the Plaintiffs
25
26 personal state issued identification (driver’s licenses) to extract compliance with unlawful
27 directives to vacate their hotel room, Defendants THOMPSON, ZEPEDA, and DOES 1-10
28
acted under the color of the law to violate Plaintiff Paea and Marissa’s basic human dignity
______________________________________________________________________________________
18
Jury Trial Demanded
1 and right to be free from the use of coercive unlawful tactics to accomplish the violation of
2
the Plaintiffs’ rights to remain in their rented dwelling, thus violating the 14th Amendment to
3
the United States Constitution.
4
141. The taking of the Plaintiffs’ state issued identification was likewise a seizure of their
5
6 property without due process of law.
7 142. Defendants acted under color of law in taking the Plaintiffs’ state-issued ID’s and
8
holding them “hostage,” to force the Plaintiffs to decide on the ultimatum given by
9
THOMPSON, all occurring in the presence of all of the other SJPD officers present who
10
11 made no effort to intercede and are liable as integral participants in the violations of the
12 Plaintiffs rights, and/or liable for their failure to intercede in acts they knew were unlawful
13 and in violation of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
14
143. As a proximate result of defendants' conduct, Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages as
15
set forth in paragraphs 125-126.
16

19
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
20 5th & 14th Amendment – Demand Identification, 42 U.S.C § 1983
(Plaintiffs v. Thompson & Zepeda)
21
22
23 paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
24 146. In doing the acts complained of herein, specifically the demand of Plaintiffs to provide
25
Defendants THOMPSON and ZEPEDA with their state issued driver’s licenses under the
26
circumstances set forth above, which request as delivered by THOMPSON constituted an
27
28
implied threat pursuant to the “this can go two ways” statements by THOMPSON that the
______________________________________________________________________________________
19
Jury Trial Demanded
1 Plaintiffs were going to be physically removed from the premises if they did not accede to
2
THOMPSON and ZEPEDA’s demands to provide their driver licenses, constituted yet
3
another 14th Amendment violation by the use of such coercive tactics, and did separately but
4
concomitantly constitute a violation of Plaintiffs’ 5th Amendment rights.
5
6 147. The freedom of individuals such as Plaintiffs to oppose or challenge police actions such
7 as demanding identification without any articulable suspicion of criminality afoot without

8
thereby risking arrest or seizure is a fundamental right enumerated in the 5th Amendment to
9
the Unites States Constitution.
10
11 148. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiffs were not required to bear witness to or against
12 themselves, or otherwise identify themselves to the government actors / police officers in any
13 manner, and such decisions and conduct is protected activity under the 5th Amendment to the
14
United States Constitution.
15
149. By obtaining such information, and such violation of the Plaintiffs’ rights, the named
16
17 Defendants did yet again violate the Plaintiffs’ 14th Amendment rights to due process.
18 150. As a proximate result of Defendant THOMPSON and ZEPEDA’s conduct and Does 1-
19
3, Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages as set forth in paragraphs 125-126.
20
21
22
23 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Monell Liability for All Constitutional Violations
24 (Plaintiffs v. CITY)
25
26
27
28
______________________________________________________________________________________
20
Jury Trial Demanded
1 153. Plaintiffs allege that each and every of the violations of the U.S. Constitution and the
2
Amendments thereto set forth above, occurred based on the policies, practices, customs of
3
CITY addressed above and hereinbelow, and/or due to the non-existent or inadequate training
4
of CITY police officers addressed above and hereinbelow, such that any or all of these long
5
6 standing policy/custom and/or training related issues were the moving force behind the
7 violations of the Plaintiffs rights as alleged herein.

8
Culture of Excessive Force
9
154. The CITY, by and through its supervisory officials and employees, citizen complaints,
10
11 civil litigation filings, and Internal Police Auditor communications and reports, has been
12 given notice on repeated occasions prior to the excessive force used on Plaintiffs, of a pattern
13 of ongoing constitutional violations and practices by the individually-named Defendants
14
herein and other police officers employed with SJPD, including having received notice
15
regarding the use of excessive force, resulting in injuries and deaths multiple times within the
16
17 City of San Jose caused by SJPD officers.
18 155. These policies and practices have been and continue to be implemented by Defendants,
19
such as the excessive use of force suffered by Plaintiffs at the hands of THOMPSON,
20
ZEPEDA, and DOES 1-3, and they are the moving force behind the violations of the Plaintiffs
21
4th Amendment rights against the unlawful entry into their hotel room, and use of excessive
22
23 force, and the violations of their rights against unlawful search and seizure as described
24 hereinabove.
25
156. Plaintiffs further allege that the CITY has either no training whatsoever, or inadequate
26
training, on the constitutional boundaries of the use of force by law enforcement officers, the
27
28
______________________________________________________________________________________
21
Jury Trial Demanded
1 use of alternative strategies such as de-escalation vs. confrontation, and potential

2
consequences of serious life altering injuries or death to victims of their excessive force.
3
157. The CITY has either provided no training at all in regard to appropriate handling,
4
treatment, and protection of unarmed suspects, or has provided wholly inadequate training
5
6 with no measurable standards, no measuring or discernment of the training recipients
7 understanding, retention, and application – or non-application – of training materials and

8
subject matter.
9
158. Plaintiffs allege the non-existent or inadequate training aforesaid was the moving force
10
11 behind the violations of the Plaintiffs’ 4th Amendment rights against the use of excessive force
12 as described hereinabove, and that the consequences of such non-existent or inadequate

13 training – that persons would be subjected to unlawful search, seizure of their person and/or
14
property, and excessive force – were such obvious consequences that the failure to implement
15
appropriate training amounted to deliberate indifference of CITY to the rights of citizens
16
17 similarly situated to Plaintiffs in the circumstances described herein.
18 4th Amendment Rights of Hotel Guests & Coercive Tactics

19
159. The CITY, by and through its supervisory officials and employees, citizen complaints,
20
civil litigation filings, and Internal Police Auditor communications and reports, has been
21
given notice on repeated occasions prior to the events involving Plaintiffs on May 18, 2019,
22
23 of a pattern of ongoing constitutional violations and practices by the individually-named
24 Defendants herein and other police officers employed with SJPD, with regard to the use of
25
coercion of citizens, including threats of arrest or seizure, or the taking of other actions the
26
officers have no right to take and which are in fact violative of a citizen’s rights, in order to
27
28
accomplish an objective the officer(s) also have no right to achieve, and which is also
______________________________________________________________________________________
22
Jury Trial Demanded
1 violative of the citizens constitutional rights; commonly these dual threats come in the form of
2
an ultimatum as occurred in this case with regard to “give me your IDs and you can stay,”
3
and, “I will give you your ID when you vacate the premises,” as described herein above.
4
160. These policies and practices of using unlawful threats and coercive tactics to obtain a
5
6 citizen’s identification – which officers have no right to demand, and/or the policies and
7 practices of using unlawful threats and coercive tactics to “evict” hotel guests, has been and
8
continues to be implemented by Defendants as alleged hereinabove at the hands of
9
THOMPSON, ZEPEDA, and DOES 1-3.
10
11 161. Plaintiffs allege these coercive unconstitutional policies and practices are the moving
12 force behind the violations of the Plaintiffs 5th Amendment rights of bearing witness against
13 themselves, and their 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable entry/search and seizure,
14
and their 14th Amendment rights of procedural and/or substantive due process before being
15
deprived of a constitutional right(s) or having such right(s) violated, as described hereinabove.
16
17 162. Plaintiffs further allege that the CITY has either no training whatsoever, or inadequate
18 training, on the constitutional boundaries of the use of coercion and threats of constitutional
19
violations of citizen’s rights, and additionally, the boundaries of law enforcements
20
intervention into purely civil matters arising in the context of the hotel guests/property owners
21
having a dispute.
22
23 163. The CITY has either provided no training at all in regard to appropriate handling,
24 treatment, and protection of the rights of hotel guests, or has provided wholly inadequate
25
training with no measurable standards, no measuring or discernment of the training recipients
26
understanding, retention, and application – or non-application – of training materials and
27
28
subject matter.
______________________________________________________________________________________
23
Jury Trial Demanded
1 164. Plaintiffs allege the non-existent or inadequate training aforesaid was the moving force
2
behind the violations of the Plaintiffs’ 5th Amendment rights of not bearing witness against
3
themselves, and Plaintiffs’ 4th Amendment rights against the unlawful and unreasonable
4
entry/search of the Plaintiffs’ hotel room, as described hereinabove.
5
6 165. Also pertinent to the 14th Amendment violation alleged hereinabove, constituted by the
7 use of the aforesaid coercive and unconstitutional practices, such as holding “hostage” the
8
Plaintiffs’ state-issued IDs in order to force an ultimatum on Plaintiffs of giving up their IDs
9
or leaving their lawfully possessed hotel room, Plaintiffs allege that CITY has failed to train
10
11 officers on the due process violations pursuant to the 14th Amendment that arise when police
12 officers engage in unlawful conduct, unsupported by law, in order to accomplish in coercive

13 fashion the waiver or release of another of a citizen’s rights under the U.S. Constitution.
14
166. Plaintiffs allege there is non-existent or inadequate training on the foregoing issues and
15
constitutional amendments, and their interplay by CITY, such that these deficiencies were the
16
17 moving force behind the violations of the Plaintiffs’ rights as alleged herein above.
18 Supervisory & Policy Maker Knowledge, Acquiescence, Ratification.

19
167. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that high-ranking CITY officials,
20
including high-ranking police supervisors knew and/or reasonably should have known about
21
1) the repeated acts of unconstitutional excessive force by SJPD officers, 2) the repeated
22
23 violations of hotel guests’ rights against unlawful entry, search, and seizure, and 3) the use of
24 coercion and unlawful deprivation of property of suspects, and other similar tactics, to force
25
the suspects acquiescence to giving up lawful rights as the “other” choice of an ultimatum.
26
168. Despite said notice, Defendant CITY has demonstrated deliberate indifference to this
27
28
pattern and practice of constitutional violations, and shown deliberate indifference to these
______________________________________________________________________________________
24
Jury Trial Demanded
1 constitutional violations, by failing to take necessary, appropriate, and/or adequate measures

2
to prevent the continued perpetuation of such patterns of conduct by their employees and
3
agents.
4
169. This lack of an adequate supervisorial response by Defendant CITY demonstrates the
5
6 existence of an informal custom, policy, or practice, which tolerates and promotes the
7 continued violation of civil rights of civilians by CITY’s employees and agents.

8
170. The acts of the individually-identified Defendants alleged herein are the direct and
9
proximate result of the deliberate indifference of Defendant CITY and its supervisory officials
10
11 and employees to violations of the constitutional rights of suspects by the individually-named
12 Defendants and other police officers.

13 171. With regard to each of the aforementioned categories of unlawful policy, practices, and
14
training related deficiencies, the CITY has failed to adequately seek out or stop such
15
constitutionally violative, coercive, and often sadistic behavior as alleged herein by failing to
16
17 investigate claims of excessive force and police officer unlawful entry/search and coercive
18 tactics, and further failing to adequately discipline, punish, or expel police officers who have
19
engaged in the aforementioned and/or similar conduct when contacting suspects and other
20
civilians.
21
172. The Plaintiffs’ rights violations and actual physical injuries were a foreseeable and a
22
23 proximate result of the deliberate indifference of the CITY to the constitutional violations
24 taking place in the SJPD, existing as a result of the patterns, practices, customs and/or
25
policies, and/or lack of training or non-existent training, described above.
26
173. As a proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages
27
28
as set forth in paragraphs 125-126.
______________________________________________________________________________________
25
Jury Trial Demanded
1 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

False Arrest
2
(Plaintiffs v. All Defendants)
3
4
5
6 175. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants THOMPSON, ZEPEDA, and Does 1-10, in
7 undertaking the warrantless and forced removal of Plaintiffs from their hotel room and then
8
the unlawful arrest of Plaintiffs did seize and falsely arrest Plaintiffs, causing their wrongful
9
restraint, confinement, and intentional deprivation of freedom of movement by use of
10
11 intimidation and use of force, which deprivation of freedom was for an appreciable period of
12 time, and neither Plaintiff voluntarily consented to the deprivation of their freedom of
13 movement.
14
176. Plaintiffs allege that CITY is liable for the infringement of Plaintiffs’ rights to be free
15
from wrongful arrest, as the CITY is a public entity it is therefore liable for injuries
16
17 proximately caused by the acts or omissions of its public employees undertaken within the
18 scope of those workers’ employment with said public entity.

19
177. Plaintiffs were harmed and the conduct of THOMPSON, ZEPEDA, and Does 1-10 and
20
each of them, was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
21
178. As a proximate result of Defendant THOMPSON and ZEPEDA’s conduct and Does 1-
22
23 10, Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages as set forth in paragraphs 125-126.
25
26
27 //
28
______________________________________________________________________________________
26
Jury Trial Demanded
1 SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Cal. Civ. Code 52.1 Bane Act – 4th and 14th Amend. Seizure Of Person/Property
2
(Plaintiffs v. Thompson, Zepeda, Does 1-10)
3
4
5
6 181. In doing the acts complained of herein regarding the taking and holding of the Plaintiffs
7 personal state issued identification (driver’s licenses) to extract compliance with unlawful
8
directives to vacate their hotel room, Defendants THOMPSON, ZEPEDA, and DOES 1-10
9
acted under the color of the law to intentionally interfere with Plaintiff Paea and Marissa’s
10
11 basic human dignity and right to be free from the use of coercive, intimidating and unlawful
12 threats to accomplish the violation of the Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights to remain in their
13 rented dwelling, thus violating California’s Tom Bane Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1.
14
182. Defendants acted under color of law in taking the Plaintiffs’ state-issued ID’s and
15
holding them “hostage,” to force the Plaintiffs to decide on the ultimatum given by
16
17 THOMPSON, all occurring in the presence of all of the other SJPD officers present who
18 made no effort to intercede and are liable as integral participants in the violations of the
19
Plaintiffs rights, and/or liable for their failure to intercede in acts they knew were unlawful
20
and in violation of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
21
22
23 set forth in paragraphs 125-126.
25
26
27 //
28
______________________________________________________________________________________
27
Jury Trial Demanded
1 EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Cal. Civ. Code 52.1 Bane Act – 4th Amend. Unlawful Entry
2
3
4
5
7 1-10 acted under the color of law to intentionally interfere with Plaintiff Paea and Marissa’s
8
basic human dignity and right to be free from the use of coercive, intimidating and unlawful
9
threats to accomplish the violation of the Plaintiffs’ 4th Amendment rights against unlawful
10
11 entry of their lawfully rented hotel room, thus violating California’s Tom Bane Act, Cal. Civ.
12 Code § 52.1.
13 187. Defendants acted under color of law in unlawfully and threateningly forcing their way
14
into the hotel room, all occurring in the presence of all of the other SJPD officers present who
15
made no effort to intercede and are liable as integral participants in the violations of the
16
17 Plaintiffs rights, and/or liable for their failure to intercede in acts they knew were unlawful
18 and in violation of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

19
20
set forth in paragraphs 125-126.
21
22
24 NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Cal. Civ. Code 52.1 Bane Act – 4th Amend. Excessive Force
25
26
27
28
______________________________________________________________________________________
28
Jury Trial Demanded
2
1-10 acted under the color of the law to interfere with Plaintiffs Paea and Marissa’s basic
3
human dignity and right to be free from threats and coercion used to commit excessive use of
4
force proscribed by the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, thus violative of
5
6 California’s Tom Bane Act.
7 192. Defendants acted under color of law in their use of threats and coercion in Plaintiffs’
8
hotel room to subject them to excessive force described hereinabove, thereby violating the
9
Plaintiffs’ constitutionally protected rights.
10
11 193. As a proximate result of defendants' threatening and coercive conduct, Plaintiffs
12 suffered injuries and damages as set forth in paragraphs 125-126.

14
15
16
17 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
18 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request and pray for judgment against Defendants, as to all claims
19
for relief, as follows:
20
1. An award of all recoverable compensatory, statutory, and other damages sustained by
21
Plaintiffs under state and federal law, in such amounts as may be separately determined for
22
23 each such individual, inclusive of damages of any nature authorized pursuant to
24 Civil Code section 52(a)&(b);

25
2. As against the individual defendants, punitive damages as allowed by state and
26
federal law;
27
28
______________________________________________________________________________________
29
Jury Trial Demanded
1 3. Attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, C.C.P. 1021.5, and any other
2
appropriate statute authorizing the award of attorney fees to Plaintiffs.
3
4. An award of all costs of suit incurred by Plaintiffs herein.
4
5. Such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
5
7 POWELL & ASSOCIATES

8
9
Date: January 15, 2020 _/S/ Robert R. Powell_
10 ROBERT R. POWELL
11 Attorney for Plaintiffs
12
JURY DEMAND: Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury in this matter, pursuant to FRCP 38(a).
13
14
15 Dated: January 15, 2020 _/S/ Robert R. Powell_

ROBERT R. POWELL
16
Attorney for Plaintiffs
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
______________________________________________________________________________________
30
Jury Trial Demanded

Santa Cruz Et Al V City of San Jose Et Al Candce-20-00351 0001.0

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Santa Cruz Et Al V City of San Jose Et Al Candce-20-00351 0001.0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 5:20-cv-00351-NC Document 1 Filed 01/16/20 Page 1 of 30

1 ROBERT R. POWELL, SBN 159747

9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12 MARISSA SANTA CRUZ, PAEA I'SUVA Case No.:

11 then entered the Plaintiffs’ room without consent.

17 tipped projectiles. This riot-gun would shortly be used on the Plaintiffs.

1 Battery on a Police Officer, Penal Code 69 Resisting/Obstructing an “Executive Officer,” and

7 mercilessly with batons, rubber bullets, and tasers.

12 citizens in terms of identification, 3) on the use of coercion to accomplish objectives in

17 Plaintiffs’ rights complained of herein as described more fully below.

23 numerous violations of their constitutional rights.

11 resident of San Jose, California.

18 (“THOMPSON”) was employed as a police officer for defendant CITY. THOMPSON is

7 San Jose, Ca.

12 down the music.

6 48. Paea replied, “Why?”

7 49. ZEPEDA replied, “That’s what we do, we ID everybody.”

17 53. Marissa pointed out, “We paid to be here.”

12 taking place in the hallway.

17 nature of a weapon in the Plaintiffs’ room nor in their personal possession.

6 for the Plaintiffs.

6 “We’re holding [your IDs] hostage until you leave.”

12 relatives who were also law enforcement officers.

12 and protect her from the assault.

17 that was later found near his neck/collarbone.

7 (3) weeks earlier.

12 her bare buttocks.

17 117. Paea made the same request as well.

24 121. They got up when ambulance personnel arrived with gurneys.

6 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

18 warrant before intruding upon Plaintiffs’ zone of privacy.

24 damages as set forth in paragraphs 125-126.

1 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

12 them to excessive force described hereinabove, thereby violating the Plaintiffs’

18 individuals named as Defendants.

6 property without due process of law.

18 individuals named as Defendants.

23 paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.

7 as demanding identification without any articulable suspicion of criminality afoot without

23 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

7 violations of the Plaintiffs rights as alleged herein.

17 City of San Jose caused by SJPD officers.

1 use of alternative strategies such as de-escalation vs. confrontation, and potential

6 with no measurable standards, no measuring or discernment of the training recipients

7 understanding, retention, and application – or non-application – of training materials and

12 as described hereinabove, and that the consequences of such non-existent or inadequate

17 similarly situated to Plaintiffs in the circumstances described herein.

18 4th Amendment Rights of Hotel Guests & Coercive Tactics

23 of a pattern of ongoing constitutional violations and practices by the individually-named

12 officers engage in unlawful conduct, unsupported by law, in order to accomplish in coercive

18 Supervisory & Policy Maker Knowledge, Acquiescence, Ratification.

1 constitutional violations, by failing to take necessary, appropriate, and/or adequate measures

7 continued violation of civil rights of civilians by CITY’s employees and agents.

11 and employees to violations of the constitutional rights of suspects by the individually-named

12 Defendants and other police officers.

1 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

18 scope of those workers’ employment with said public entity.

1 SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

23 set forth in paragraphs 125-126.

1 EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

18 and in violation of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

23 individuals named as Defendants.