Santa Clara Police Department denies wrongdoing, but has agreed to a $7 million settlement after entering a home without a warrant and injuring a woman. Maria Medina reports (9/27/17)
Yup, chief is endangering all his cops & every other cop out there. It's obvious why they burst in a door & injured a woman. Their chief covers for criminal behavior.
The chief defending their actions tells us that their actions are part of the culture and totally normal in his eyes. One instance on video, wonder how many more instances not recorded or not made public.
The citizens of Santa Clara should actually sue the Police Pension Fund to get the $7M back and/or the individual policemen that did the Kick Door In without a warrant for a minor child.
What makes you think no exigent circumstances? Explain the entire encounter and case to me. You cant tell that from the smal clip that was shown in this news story. Its an assumption you are just jumping too without full context of the entire situation.
You right, sure they try to cover their butts after the fact, but the city saw that they had no leg to stand on. Momma won the lottery there. 99 times out of 100, the police get away with breaking the law, so that is what the settlement really reflects.
@100Above what are you talking about ? Lmao you know we live in the most expensive city in the united states the city has money trust me they're not worried about a little block revenue that's not nothing at all to them but legit a couple of cop cars, some drones , swat gear and so on 😂
No, you're not. They were after a person in the house who was wanted for a felony that they could visibly see was inside the home. They did not need a warrant and she did not have the right to refuse entry. The city did not settle; the city had no say. The insurer settled on behalf of the city.
The chief is an old white guy. The victims are minorities. As much as conservatives want say that's using the race card and culture war, doesn't make it not true. That's just downplaying this atrocity which is defended by the government and paid for by taxpayers. We essentially pay to be terrorized.
If the insurance pays the settlement, then it should CANCEL them! I wonder how difficult it would be to get another insurer? Probably a little difficult after a jury awarded all that cash!! I wouldn’t cover those Tyrannical Bullies!!!
Crack heads like u say defund the police. Financially isn't the only way to defund police. Stop harassing the cops. Without them you'd be dead end of story. Without police you'd be dead
The police chief should be dismissed instantly. Furthermore, he should be investigated. A person who would commit this type of crime once and show zero remorse has probably done it before.
Take that money and leave get that money out of that state and others with money should allow that state to become slum state drive the price of ocean front property down to 20 dollars an acre
Doesn't matter if she said it was an accident at the time, when you scared of your attackers, you say nice things to try and calm the situation, and not make them any more angry and hurt you even more. Imagine the pain of a broken bone and wondering what they might do next. And before anyone says but it's the police, how many of these videos do we see where the suspect doesn't even make it out alive.
Search warrants are for searching homes to look for evidence against you for a crime. They dont need a search warrant to enter your home if they arent going to search it. Duh.
They need to come out of their retirement funds. That way, ALL cops will have skin in the game, and it might make the so-called good ones a bit less tolerant of the thugs since it will cost them money.
Better ... out of that years salary budget for big departments. Over two to five years for smaller agencies. Court administered so there can't be any "creative accounting".
IMHO: In the case of Police Misconduct. Any settlement reached for misconduct, a percentage 10%-50% should come directly from the officers involved. NOT to be paid to the victim’s but to the city as reimbursement. ** remove your emotions & think logically here ** If the officer has to pay the victim they will declare bankruptcy & tie it up in the courts. Let the city pay it out & require the city to go after the officers involved. This way the victim gets paid in full as soon as possible & the city has the means to go after the officer/s. ❗️ALSO❗️ WE have to make sure that any monies raised from crowdfunding for these officers go to a fund for victims of Police Misconduct and NOT to the officers directly!..Think Manson Law etc. Currently most if not all police are covered by Qualified Immunity which must end!!! & the damn police unions as well. Now think of your situation!!! If you couldn’t get fired & were not personally financially responsible for your misconduct, what would your field of work look like!?? Why do you think MOST/NOT ALL gov departments suck!?? You have to be stupid if you think giving them more money is the answer!!! NO ABSOLUTELY NOT!! Holding them accountable is the answer JUST LIKE YOU & ME!!! Do you agree or disagree??? Why!?? (Finally: You ever hear Police & Gov say if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about!?? Then WHY are the police & gov soooooooo against oversight & accountability!???🤔
No he does not...the daughter committed a crime found guilty....the mother should have turned her "No Good Daughter" into the police b4 they come to her door....I HOPE THE POLICE FILE AGAINST GIVING A MOTHER WITH A CRIMINAL DAUGHTER 7 MILLION...for what committing a crime... LOL THATS FUNNY SHIT
@@doratiscareno5856 he most definitely does need to be fired because now the city is out 7 million because his cops dont know how to follow the law themselves. No warrant no enter. Now the criminal they were trying to stop got paid. Yea that's a good chief alright.
@@Hood.Housekeeping Do you NOT GET...HER DAUGHTER IS A CRIMINAL NON OF THIS WOULD OF HAPPEND....TURN YR DAUGHTER IN...THEY WOULD "HAVE NEVER HAD TO COME AND GET HER" SHE ADMITS IT WAS AN ACCIDENT WHEN SHE FELL ...PUT OUT THE WHOLE TAPE
Jeff Shoemaker, In my state if an ordinary person commits a home intrusion, I am entitled to assume that he is intending to use Deadly Force to kill me or my family. In my state, if you are trying to use Deadly Force to try to kill me, I GET TO KILL YOU BACK. And if the law enforcement tries to break into my home without a warrant, the they have no special powers or immunity. They are just like any other criminal trying to break in and kill me.
WRONG. The Chief ised right. As long as the cops were freshly following leads ofed evidence which haved been freshly discovered they cand go ined to anywhere, even to homes. Whened they do appeal that foolished settling ofed that case the cops will win. It ised a legal rule the US Supremed court has supported many many times before. I am only 15 and even I do know that law.
@@Jetsetfastfood I don't know if that's accurate but I am on the side of the police cheif. A warrant is not required to go inside a home to arrest someone, as long as there is reasonable suspision that the person is isn't. The fact that he lives there is all they need to bust down that door and make an arrest.
@@Moose300 When the police break down your door without following the legal protections we have as free citizens it's too late. At that point America is over.
@@Jetsetfastfood When you prevent police from entering your home to arrest someone for arson, you deserve to be arrested too. Please tell me how it's illegal for police to enter a home to arrest that kid when they know he's inside. An officer can arrest someone when they know where the suspect is. An arrest warrant can be issued to let any police officer that encounters that person that they should be placed under arrest, it is not needed to go into a house to make an arrest. A search warrant is often needed to go into a home, however that's just for searching a home. If the police arrested the kid and then searched his closest for evidence to what he did, that would be illegal without a warrant or reasonable suspision.
The chief says that they cut the video short and didn't show the part where she said it was an accident. Well, from the looks of the video, I'd say it came from the cops bodycam so why doesn't he show the rest of the video.
Worse! he's an enabler that allows officers under his command to knowingly violate the very laws they are payed to enforce. He needs to be investigated.
There is no "entire story to be told Chief": You entered her house, broke her ankle. This woman won and cost us $7M. You still defending your police thugs?
@@777Skeptic exactly! no warrent fine use your hot pursuit bs, were you persuing mom? nope you were pursuing a 15 year old, so why is mom who is in her own home cuffed and being removed to another location? The answer no good reason they do this so violently her ankle breaks oh but she said it was an accident ok show me that footage, body cam was off $7 million dollars please.
Yup that's messed up the city should replace that chief with someone who actually does their job, if they keep this chief around their bound to lose millions more.
My late father worked in a shipyard . He was knocked off of his platform while doing a pipework inspection . He had to fight for three years inorder to even get the crane operators Union to admit their man was intoxicated at the controls. My fathe won about £20,000 . I don't see how $7000,000 can be justified here . I'm no fan of the Cops but that amount is crass . My dad fractured his skull in three places , shattered his rib cage,shattered his pelvis ,lost part of his jaw and all his teeth . He also had multiple fractures in his arms and shattered his knee caps and broke both his legs . Again $7000,000 ? Give me a break .
@@mdsuavejr if this case happened or didn't happen, the police department pays the same amount to the insurance. That's how insurance works. This 7 mil came entirely from a private company dude
As the lawsuit of several years ago against the New London police dept. proved, they do not want cops to be too smart. abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836
Imagine “settling” for 7 mil, then going on TV and trying to defend that. Man the people of that city should absolutely be afraid of those cops. Every. Single. One.
“They used minimal amount of force to break into her house without a warrant and caused an ankle break.” -what the chief meant to say. Also, even if she did trip herself and break her ankle it would not have happened if the cops were not breaking the law to get into her house without a warrant. Pretty disgusting.
No they dont, depending on the situation. Ill give you an example. Lets say the known criminal in the house was suspected of just shooting someone down the street in a store. The cops would be REQUIRED to enter the house to get them , providing they had reasonable suspsion the person was prestently in the house. There would be little information if additional people were in the house that could be victims, or potential victims. To pretend like real life is black and white would be foolish. While most of the time a warrent is arequired, there are extending cirumstances that allow cops to by pass that requirement in order to protect other citizens.@@randomdragononthestreet8943
because the city's insurance company made a decision to avoid a legal fight for the sake of cost-benefit analysis and/or the city counsel made a decision about optics. The woman allegedly admits she tripped and fell in the full video. She was obstructing the arrest of her daughter, which is a crime, after she was identified as started a fire cUdong $350,000 in damage at her school.
Actually the Taxpayers need to fit the bill on these cases because the Chief is an elected official and is the primary driver of the department. Also these officers should be fired and sued civilly as well since the committed felonies and are no longer covered under immunity clauses.
All officers who participated should be be charged misdemeanors or felonies depending on the laws broken and have a significant portion of their wages garnished till the debt is paid. Maybe then they will be more wise about how they enforce the law legally and in a safe manner. If citizens break law it can be jail, restitution ect. As they are supposed to be setting an example the consequences should be just as harsh as ours if not worse.
@@SoItGoes5 Tax payers didn't pay, it, Santa Clara County's insurance company paid it. What doesn't get discussed about these civil cases is how much the premiums are for that insurance on a yearly basis, and who is paying those annual premiums. In New York City for example, the Police Union pays for the Cities insurance. Not sure about who's paying in Santa Clara County.
No warranty. They didn't have to break that beautiful glass door. That was HER home. There had to be another way to resolve that issue w/o that bullshit going down. Police seem to think that violence with guns solves EVERYTHING. IT DOES NOT. THE 21ST CENTURY HAS BLOSSOMED INTO MUCH MORE THAN BLACK AND WHITE RULES ON PAPER. DIVERSE ISSUES AND PEOPLE REQUIRES A MORE DIVERSE TRAINING. MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES, DRUG CULTURES. OUR LAWS ARE OLD, AND METHODS ARE OUTDATED. NEW TIMES REQUIRE NEW TECH AND TRAINING. SEEMS LIKE LAW ENFORCEMENT WANNA BLAME KILLING PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY FEAR FOR THEIR LIVES. THEN IF YOUR INTELLIGENCE AND TRAINING CANT TEACH YOU TO TAZE INSTEAD OF TERRORIZING AND DOWN RIGHT KILLING. GET OUT OF IT. LET SOME NEW BLOOD INTO LAW ENFORCEMENT.
The thugs in police uniform don't care about that huge amount of money has be paid to victims of police brutality because they know the taxpayers are the ones to pay for it. Police brutality is going to continue until those thugs in police uniform have to be responsible for their violent crimes personally.
we can get our car impounded and arrested for not having paperwork. Do the whole job or no job at all. If ya'll had a warrant we wouldn't be out 7mil. Nice going Duey!
The chief is the problem. It shows the department is rotten from the root. To defend his actions that are ON CAMERA breaking her leg after ENTERING HER HOME WITHOUT A WARRANT is beyond me. There’s absolutely no way to claim “hope pursuit” when the girls 15 years old, NEVER RAN ANYWHERE and the case was over a week old and they were clearly in no rush to detain her. This goes to show they’ll make any excuse to violate our rights and claim qualified immunity after the fact and if it costs the township 7 million dollars of taxpayer $ it no sweat of his back. Why would he care lol
@@ghostofreagan3181 the daughter was suspected of arson which is a felony. She had a felony warrant. If the police have reasonable suspicion that someone with a felony warrant is hiding within your house they do not need a search warrant. I'm not a cop or a lawyer, I work at a fucking factory and I know this shit. You have no excuse not to know the law
@@nocthemedic2951 Under non emergency circumstances can't a office enter your property. If they have reasonable grounds to suspect that you are hiding a suspect or conducting illegal activity in your home . They must obtain a warrant from a magistrate . Alright, listen to your own advice you dumb idiot.
I just saw this and I am so happy for her. I was wrongfully charged by a sheriff deputy for sales when it should’ve been possession after serving nine months fighting the case they dropped it down to possession. I lost my apartment. My vehicle got out of Elmwood in was sleeping on couches, because the cops feelings got hurt over me telling him how stupid and worthless and pathetic he was
Why in the hell is the daughter burning down a school in the first place, if the mother knew about it she should have turned and arrested for protecting a criminal.
The chief needs a lesson in Constitutional law. The 4th amendment was horrifically violated. Our founding fathers didn't want this kind of police state.
That chief has no business wearing a badge. They broke the law, they violated that woman's Constitutional rights, assaulted her, injured her. Those officers should be FIRED, and that chief should be fired if he won't resign.
or what if a child got seriously hurt as well couse they didn't care who was in their way as long as they broke in unreal cop's are just out of control and our government isn't doing anything about it how many more people have to get hurt or die by cop's before something is done to correct this ongoing problem 🤔😡 I always thought we could count on the law enforcement to serve and protect but now and day's everyone is afraid 😟 of them couse they've have become gang's with badge's and gun's who end up hurting inocent people who they sword to protect god help us all.......
When the police chief defends it and says the officers did nothing wrong, he's saying it will happen again. And why wouldn't it? - they believe they did nothing wrong.
The fact that the highest ranking cop in that city is backing that type of actions, PROVES that things will NOT get any better until WE THE PEOPLE stand against it.
Bottom line is you have no authority to enter so everything after that is illegal. It’s sad when the leaders condone this type of behaviour. Look I was a cop for thirty five years. In a case like this a phone call to the parents to bring the daughter down to the office is the way to go. We called it, dial a pinch .
It doesn't matter if it was an "accident". What matters is the "accident" wouldn't have happened if the police didn't become criminals and illegally break into her house. If they had a search warrant, then the lady might have let them in according to this. Having no warrants and breaking into the home is a crime, especially when the owner says no. It doesn't matter who the police think is inside. They have to have a warrant. So the insurance payout that the chief was upset about is the insurance company seeing no way out of paying. People need to understand their rights. Many times police don't and they break your rights all the time.
The reason the city settled is not because they broke her leg (though that is an aggravating factor). The reason they settled is because the cops entered the home illegally by not having a warrant. That's a federal civil right violation.
Eh wrong...didn't need one. Active pursuit began again when they ID'd her on public property...they didn't record that so had to settle because there is no "proof" of identifying her.
Dude her leg is bent backwards ...are u kidding me?! They had no warrant, broke down her door, ripped her out of her home, clearly pushed her onto the ground!!! U can tell by the complete lack of concern for her leg being SNAPPED, that it wasn't just a freak accident. Some of these cops legit enjoy hurting ppl. I have been assaulted 3 times after nearly dying & needing their help....only to be falsely arrested to cover up their beating the crap out of me. State troopers are esp some of the worst. I never had any issues, not even a speeding ticket, until I moved upstate NY. In 5 yrs I had all 3 incidents & even got pulled over once for going THREE miles over the speed limit. Never call the police unless ur literally dying, always make sure u request EMT!!! & If they come to ur home, without a warrant, do NOT open the door. Make it seem like ur not home, hide all pets, esp dogs...& Ur children. There are some kind cops, but it's RARE.
Thanks Ironhorse! I'm pretty sure that would break that blue line pretty quickly. It's easy enough to toe the line when costs nothing, but with skin (or cash) in the game that's a different story.
Old Gregg You are wronged. Hot pursuit ised a ecxeption and the supremed court does defined hot pursuit as freshly following ofed leads ofed evidenced continuously to the location ofed the bad guy too. And the age ofed the crime means nothing. It coulded be a bank robbery fromed 10 years ago and just they discovered evidenced toay which thened leded them to more evidence which leded to eventually the bad guy ined a continuous line. The important ofed parts are that they did finded fresh evidence they did not haved before and thened that evidence did lead them continuously alonged a trail to the bad guy. That ised evened taught ined laws school ined college. Exigent ofed circumstances are NOT required fore each case. Only that they did finded new evidence that led alonged a trail to the bad guy. I do supposed you could say it that there ised exigent circumstance that the bad guy cand get away ifed not grabbed right to then OR evidence could geted destroyed. Sinced we do not know it ifed there were being others evidence whiched could geted destroyed we cand not decide ond that. Only you cand go ond what does the supremed court says is OK fore doing.
Old Gregg You are titled to your ownd opinion but you are wrong. Ifed the evidenced does lead to others evidence ined a continuoused chain and that chain does to lead to suspected persons just that does maked a credibled line ofed evidenced. Ifed only they did find one singled clue yours opinion woulded to be right, but as I did to say, it doesed haved to be a continuoused line ofed evidences that does lead toa bad guy. My fosters father I do haved now was a sheriff fore very a long ofed time and his ined service schools legals updates ised what did I geted it fromed and I did too evened talked to the college guy that did teached it. He was a attorney and was too a FBI dude fore a while and then geted to be a teacher. And I amed not making laws, that ised interpreting ofed it and the supreme court did supported it. And at least I amed not a stucked uped jerked off and at ofed least I haved studyed laws. Just but I do guessed you must be a judge fore 50 years withed all yours perfect ofed armed chairs legals OPINIONED. I may ofed be 15 only but at least I haved takened timed to read abouted it. And judges are NOT impartials partys, totally impartiality ised IMPOSSIBLE, they are representations ofed a common ordinary intelligent citizen. And you thinked you know the laws? Huh. And THAT does come from a branch 1 circuit court judge too even. Oh and I writed as this because I geted the shit beat out ofed me by a vile fosters father and I geted a TBI. So now you do not haved to maked fun ofed me neither! Good bye.
Karan Kapoor Yes, I do. FIRST, the insured person or organization pays a premium based on predicted risk of payout. When large payouts-say $7 million-happen, the predicted future risk rises.....and right along go the premiums taxpayers foot.
@@starkapoorz - Are you even from America? Your post makes me doubt, for one. And two, the insurance would be either through the town or county. And that bill will increase taxes in that specific town or county because premiums will rise. Therefore, the citizens of said town or county will be paying those increased taxes. Do you get it now?
