On October 28, 2008, an African-American man filed this class-action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Oakland, California Police Department and one of its officers. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiff, represented by private ...
read more >
On October 28, 2008, an African-American man filed this class-action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Oakland, California Police Department and one of its officers. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiff, represented by private counsel, requested injunctive relief and monetary damages, alleging that the City unlawfully targeted citizens on the basis of race, violating the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that officers of the police department had issued warrants based on intentionally false or misleading information, subjecting him to unreasonable search and seizure, arresting him without probable cause, and maliciously prosecuting him. On October 6, 2008, the charges against the plaintiff were dismissed when the Alameda County District Attorney's Office discovered that the warrant had been illegally obtained. Although the charges were dismissed, the plaintiff alleged that as a result of the unreasonable search and seizure, he was unable to work causing a loss of income and suffered damages for pain and emotional distress.
On February 9, 2009, a second amended complaint was filed. This complaint added plaintiffs, including African American and Hispanic men and women, who were allegedly subjected to unreasonable search and seizure stemming from illegally obtained warrants and many of whom had been subsequently arrested.
On August 5, 2010, the plaintiffs submitted a stipulated motion for approval of settlement. The United States District Court Northern District of California (Judge Thelton E. Henderson) granted the motion where the City offered to settle the monetary relief claims of the 104 individual plaintiffs and putative class members for total gross settlement sum of $6,500.00 inclusive of all attorney fees and costs. After reaching this agreement, the parties continued with settlement discussions on non-monetary relief claims. Their discussions focused on specific reforms intended to remedy the kind of police misconduct that occurred in this case that would be of substantial benefit to the putative class.
On February 14, 2011, the parties reached a non-monetary settlement agreement. The settlement set out specific procedures for the Oakland Police Department to obtain affidavits and warrants. The parties also agreed to set of protocols for drug evidence testing. The Court retained jurisdiction for two years from the settlement date so that the parties could petition for redress pertaining to compliance with their agreement.
There is nothing substantive in the docket sheet following settlement. Presumably the matter is closed. Katherine Reineck - 03/10/2015
Beth Richardson - 07/23/2015