Hide Transcript Show Transcript

HARD TO WATCH. WAS A CHAOTIC SCENE THAT PLAYED OUT AT A BUSY SACRAMENTO SHOPPING CENTER ON 19TH STREET DECEMBER LAST YEAR NOW THE CITY ITS POLICE. MEN AND CHIEF DANIEL HAN ARE FACING A FEDERAL LAWSUIT BECAUSE OF IT. THERE WAS JUST NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS WHATSOEVER CIVIL RIGHTS. ATTORNEY. MARC. MARON SAYS HIS DISABLED CLIENT KEVIN COLE HAD JUST BOUGHT SOME THINGS AT THE SAFEWAY THAT NIGHT COLE OPENED A BAG OF DOG FOOD THEN HE WAS CONFRONTED BY A SECURITY GUARD WHO BELIEVED HE WAS HOMELESS AND TOLD HIM TO LEAVE THE PROPERTY ACCORDING TO THE LAWSUIT COLE TOLD THE GUARD. HE WAS GOING TO THE PANDA EXPRESS, BUT THE GUARD TOLD HIM HE COULDN’T G INTO THE RESTAURANT AND HAD TO LEAVE IMMEDIATELY. EDIE ATELY AND IF HE DIDN’T POLICE WILL BE CALLED THIS SACRAMENTO POLICE BODY CAMERA VIDEO SHOWS THE CONFRONTATION. THE OFFICER TOLD COLE HE HAD 10 MINUTES TO LEAVE BEFORE THAT TIME WAS UP. MARIN SAYS COLE WAS WRESTLED TO THE GROUND VIDEO OBTAINED BY KCRA SHOWS THE DOG BEING KICKED THEN BARKING AFTER WHICH AN OFFICER FIRED HIS WEAPON INJURING NIKKI THE DOG A SECURITY GUARD AND MARIN’S IT AT THE TIME HE WAS SHOT. HE WAS BLINDED. HE’S RECOVERED HIS SIGHT IN THAT ONE EYE HE HAS NOW OBVIOUSLY, HE’S UNDERGONE TWO SURGERIES THE 25 PAGE LAWSUIT LIST 15 CLAIMS, INCLUDING FALSE DETENTION ARREST AND NEGLIGENCE. MARIN SAYS HIS CLIENT HAD A RIGHT TO BE ON THE PROPERTY AS A CUSTOMER AND IMPROPER POLICE TRAINING CAUSE THIS OUTCOME THIS NEGLIGENT GROSSLY VIOLATIVE CONDUCT OF THE OFFICER. NOT ONLY DIRECTLY INJURED THE DOG BUT INJURED TWO OTHER PEOPLE AS WELL. SUCH A RECKLESS. ACT WAS RIDICULOUS. THE LAWSUIT DOES NOT DEMAND A DOLLAR AMOUNT. MARIN SAYS HIS CLIENT IS NOT LOOKING FOR A FORTUNE. HE JUST WANTS TO BE MADE WHOLE IN SACRAMENTO B

Advertisement Man sues Sacramento, police after December Safeway shooting 3 injured in officer-involved shooting at Midtown shopping center Share Shares Copy Link Copy

A federal lawsuit has been filed against the City of Sacramento, the Sacramento Police Department and Chief Daniel Hahn after a police shooting at a busy Safeway parking lot last year.The shooting injured a dog, it’s owner and a security guard.The attorney for the dog's owner said the lawsuit was the only way to get the city's attention when their claim went unsettled.It was a chaotic scene that played out at a busy Sacramento shopping center on 19th Street in December 2019.“There's just no justification for this whatsoever,” civil rights attorney Mark Merin said about the shooting.Merin said his client, Kevin Cole, who has a physical disability, had just bought some things at the Safeway that night. Cole opened a bag of dog food when he was confronted by a security guard who believed he was homeless.Merin said the guard told Cole to leave the property. According to the lawsuit, Cole told the guard was going to the Panda Express but the guard told him he couldn't go into the restaurant and had to leave immediately if he didn't want police to be called.Nearly a week after the officer-involved shooting, the Sacramento Police Department released body camera videos of the incident. Video obtained by KCRA 3 shows the dog being kicked, barking at an officer and then an officer firing his gun. Nikki, the dog, was hit in the leg by a bullet fragment. Cole was hit between the eyes.“At the time (Cole) was shot, he was blinded," Merin said. "He's recovered his sight in that one eye. He has undergone 2 surgeries."The 25-page lawsuit lists 15 claims, including false detention/arrest, retaliation, unreasonable and excessive force, assault/battery and negligence.Merin said his client had a right to be on the property as a customer and improper police training caused the outcome.“This negligent, grossly violative conduct of the officer not only directly injured the dog but injured two other people as well. Such a reckless act. It was ridiculous,” Merin said.The lawsuit does not demand a dollar amount. Merin said his client is not looking for a fortune. He just wants to be made whole.The attorney said the dog made a full recovery and was returned to his client. Cole was treated, released and never charged with a crime.Sacramento police said Monday the officers involved in this incident are working their regular assignments but would not comment on the lawsuit.KCRA 3's Brandi Cummings sat down with Merin to get more details about the lawsuit.Q: Why was it important to file the lawsuit?Merin: We wish that someone who's injured by the unconstitutional acts of police officers would be able just to notify the city and then they would resolve the claim, especially in a case of clear liability. We called. We submitted a claim, we supported the claim and we got nowhere. So, the only way you can get the city’s attention, unfortunately, is to file an action in court, which is what we had to do. Q: Why do you believe this situation escalated?Merin: I think the officers are expecting to be obeyed and when someone says, 'Well you know, I have some rights here. I don’t think I have to just move because you tell me and I’m taking my time.' It inflamed the officer. He wasn’t properly trained. He doesn’t know, frankly, that citizens do have Constitutional rights. He’s not loitering when a person is on the premises of a business where he’s transacted business. He has a right to be there. So, this officer just didn’t know what he was doing. I’m frankly very bothered by the failure of the city police department to train its officers and instruct them. Instead of admonishing them and disciplining them when they do something like this, they tend to rubber stamp it, clap them on the back and send them out there to do more harm to other people. That infuriates the public and it's gotta stop. Q: Why is Chief Hahn named specifically in the lawsuit?Merin: It’s customary when you have officers whose conduct is ratified by the highers up, in this case the chief, to sue them as well because clearly it’s not just one rogue officer acting improperly. It’s the entire department, which tolerates and ratifies and condones the illegal conduct of its officers. That makes the supervisors and the chief responsible and what they’re responsible for is failure to train, failure to correct, failure to discipline and the continuation of an unconstitutional policy.