by Garth Meyer
A U.S. District Court decision has moved the case of Luke Carlson vs. City of Redondo Beach another step closer to a jury trial.
Judge Otis D. Wright, II, District Court Central District, denied a motion May 12 by three Redondo Beach police officers for a summary judgment in the case. Two parents accuse the officers of excessive force after their adult son was shot three times the night of Jan. 8, 2019 at a residence on the Esplanade.
“Based on Plaintiff’s assertions and supporting evidence, a reasonable jury could find that the City has at least an unwritten policy of not investigating, redressing or otherwise responding to excessive force incidents,” wrote Judge Wright. “Which could constitute an unconstitutional policy.”
The court also concluded that plaintiffs had “offered enough evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find for Plaintiffs on each of their municipal liability claims.”
The case was filed by Luke Carlson, the adult son, who survived the shooting, and parents Jeffery Carlson and Jeanne Zimmer.
It alleges that unreasonable force was used in the shooting of Luke Carlson, as well as in apprehending his parents.
A total of eight claims were filed against Redondo police officers Patrick Knox, Ryan Crespin and Sergeant Mark Valdivia, and a claim for punitive damages.
Redondo Beach City Attorney Mike Webb points to the context of the May 12 decision.
“Notably in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court must view the facts and draw reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the individuals suing the City,” Webb said in a statement to Easy Reader. “That will not be the standard going forward at trial. In this matter, the individuals suing the officers and the City dispute that there was a gun in the hand of (Lucas Carlson) and deny that he pointed the gun at the officer.”
Undisputed facts in the case lead to a question of whether two officers (Crespin and Knox) were justified in shooting Carlson after first encountering him through a window from a narrow walkway at the parents’ house.
“The judge believes there are triable issues of fact to be decided by a jury,” said Dale K. Galipo, attorney for the plaintiffs (the Carlsons and Zimmer) in a statement to Easy Reader.
After Crespin shot Luke Carlson twice through the window, Carlson was shot a third time by Officer Knox in the backyard.
The parents, Jeffery Carlson and Zimmer, allege they were then pulled away from the scene with excessive force, to the point that Carlson’s two shoulder rotator cuffs were torn.
On scene
Initial 911 calls came from neighbors who reported screaming, a male voice saying he was going to kill someone and the cocking of a shotgun.
According to depositions and the court summary, upon arrival the police officers (defendants in the case) attempted to establish an arrest rescue team as they determined the exact location of the neighbor’s reports.
Officer Valdavia ordered officers to contain the area.
At that point, the defendants say they heard yelling and loud screams coming from 1002 Esplanade.
Plaintiffs dispute that any of the officers heard yelling or screams.
As Knox led officers down the narrow pathway on one side of the house, the defendants claim Officer Crespin saw over his right shoulder into the last window before the back gate. He saw Luke Carlson holding a semiautomatic handgun to his head.
Plaintiffs say Carlson never had a gun in his hand and thus, no gun pointed at his head. His hands were visibly empty, they assert.
Crespin yelled, “Gun, gun” to make the other officers aware.
According to Crespin, at this point Carlson’s parents were three to four feet away from Luke Carlson when Crespin commanded him to “drop the gun.”
Luke Carlson instead allegedly turned toward Crespin with a gun at a 45-degree angle.
Officer Crespin stated later that, at this moment, he thought Luke Carlson was going to open fire at him, then go out the back door, where Officer Knox would be entering the backyard.
Seconds after Crespin’s “drop the gun” command, he fired at Carlson.
He fired two shots, then heard another, seconds later, and believed Carlson had gone out the back door.
The shot Crespin heard was from Knox at the back gate.
The back gate
Knox stated that he heard Crespin’s “drop the gun” command followed by shots. Knox allegedly “saw flashes” inside the house but was unsure if the gunshots originated from inside or outside the house, before Luke Carlson walked out the back door.
Knox saw him, he said, though not his hands, which were down at an angle toward his waistband.
Knox stated that Carlson was wearing a “bulky jacket” and appeared to have a weapon.
Knox commanded Carlson, “Let me see your hands.”
The defendant and the plaintiffs dispute whether Carlson complied.
The officer contends that Carlson walked toward him, and Knox had no cover. Plaintiffs dispute both assertions. Knox fired one shot and Carlson fell. Knox and another officer quickly secured and handcuffed Carlson, finding two bullet wounds in his chest and a bullet wound in his back. Officers discovered him unarmed.
According to more undisputed facts in the case, Sgt. Valdivia walked into the backyard to find Carlson on the ground and his parents yelling at the other officers.
Valdivia, trying to get the parents to clear the area, grasped the couple by their forearms and moved them down the walkway to another officer. Valdivia and other officers dispute the accusation that they grabbed the parents in a forceful manner.
After Valdivia took Mr. Carlson and Ms. Zimmer to the front of the house, he stated that he went inside and saw a handgun on top of a washer or dryer by the back door.
At odds
All told, the eight claims by the plaintiffs include excessive force, municipal liability, battery, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence and violation of the Bane Act – a California Civil Code section which forbids interfering with someone’s constitutional rights by threats, intimidation or coercion.
Leading to the May 12 court ruling, the defendants moved for summary judgment on each of the eight claims.
Plaintiffs contend that they were the only people at 1002 Esplanade that night and were not in a heated argument, they were not screaming or making loud noises. They also say that Luke Carlson never had a gun in his hand.
They supported their contentions to the court with photographs, deposition testimony and police body camera footage.
The plaintiffs point to the officers’ statements that they were unaware of what residence the reported screaming came from.
In Judge Wright’s Order Denying Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, the court stated that the body camera footage is “not sufficiently clear that it blatantly contradicts either version of the events.”
Both parties agree that after Luke Carlson was shot, he “did not resist at all.”
Did officers have other methods available to capture or subdue the suspect?
Officers did have less lethal weapons with them such as a taser, (pepper) spray and baton. Officers also stated that before the shooting, they discussed having one of the responders carry a less lethal weapon, a .40 millimeter.
Compliance
Whether or not officers had the time or ability to use non-lethal means was something the court deemed not “resolvable on summary judgment.”
It is “a question of material fact in genuine dispute.”
Both parties agree that Mr. Carlson and Ms. Zimmer were compliant with the officers.
This, and the fact that the defendants offered no evidence that a crime was being committed when they apprehended the parents, “weighs against objective reasonableness of the officers’ conduct,” the court wrote.
The plaintiffs state that, since they were compliant with officers, it suggests they would have responded to verbal commands to walk away – or that officers could have used less force in removing them.
“This factor also weighs against finding Valdivia’s and the other officers’ conduct was objectively reasonable,” the judge wrote.
Deadly force
Plaintiffs also argue that the City of Redondo Beach has “a widespread, pervasive practice of insulating deputies from accountability of shootings.”
They note that in the preceding 10 years, to 2019, Redondo Beach had no officers use deadly force out of policy and none had been disciplined for using deadly force.
“Be assured that each and every critical incident involving RBPD personnel is investigated thoroughly by an outside agency (such as the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department), the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office and the City,” said City Attorney Webb. “…Contrary to the allegations made in this case that RBPD is failing in some respect because no officer has been found to have violated law, policy or their training in the use of deadly force in the 10 years prior, the facts are clear that after thorough investigations all RBPD officers have been found to have acted properly in each such incident.”
Officers Valdivia, Crespin and Knox were not asked to repeat any training after the January 2019 shooting, or receive new training on use-of-force.
“Based on this evidence, a reasonable jury could find that the City has indeed failed to adequately train its officers,” wrote the court.
City Attorney Webb countered this.
“Given the investigative information available to the City at this point, there is no basis to believe that the involved personnel should be retrained on use of force with regard to such incidents,” Webb said.
The case now moves forward. A jury trial is expected to convene sometime later this year.
“The City awaits the findings of the District Attorney’s Office and will take into consideration any information received through the investigative process as the internal administrative investigation is completed,” Webb said. ER
