6/17/25, 10:01 AM FW: 6/17/25 CIVIL LAWSUITS AS DIls IS THE ONLY AVENUE TO OFFICER DISCIPLINE. - Agendadesk - Outlook ok Outlook
FW: 6/17/25 CIVIL LAWSUITS AS DIls IS THE ONLY AVENUE TO OFFICER DISCIPLINE.
From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Tue 6/17/2025 7:40 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: Charli Parkhurst <|
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 9:07 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan <[email protected]>; Aubrey, Eddie <[email protected]> Chief. sipd <[email protected]>; CAO Main <[email protected].
Subject: 6/17/25 CIVIL LAWSUITS AS DIls IS THE ONLY AVENUE TO OFFICER DISCIPLINE. [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important This email addresses two items on the June 17" agenda;
4.1 The OIPA's Year End Report - recommendations #3 and #12
3.9 The million-dollar settlement in Tovar vs. City of San Jose #3/#12: The SJPD Police Conduct Oversight Process should classify misconduct-related lawsuits as Dils. It is important because civil lawsuits can reveal potential misconduct early which benefits everyone. Notably, CLASSIFYING CIVIL LAWSUITS AS DEPARTMENT-INITIATED INVESTIGATIONS (DIIS) IS THE ONLY AVENUE TO OBTAIN APPROPRIATE OFFICER DISCIPLINE. Civil litigation only results in money damages and/or injunctive relief; it cannot render discipline however justified.
Classifying civil lawsuits as DIl also ensures that the consideration of promotions, transfer or discipline levels are based upon a complete record sanctioned by the POA of an officer's past conduct.
In addition, the SJPD Police Conduct Oversight Process should classify as DIls all SJPD use-of-force involving death or great bodily injury. Promptly reviewing such incidents can potential misconduct early which benefits everyone. Classifying these death/GBl incidents as Dils is the ONLY AVENUE to obtain appropriate officer discipline.
Classifying death/GBl incidents as Dils also ensures that the consideration of promotions, transfer or discipline levels are based upon a complete record of an officer's past conduct. Such classification ensures these events are reviewed via an established procedure that both protects the rights of the officers and increases the confidence of the public given the role of the OIPA.
Chief Joseph's 6/12/25 memo regarding OIPA's recommendation #3 states:
The overwhelming majority of civil lawsuits are accompanied by IA complaints, the receipt of which automatically prompts OIPA review. However, in the rare instances when the civil lawsuit is unaccompanied by a formal complaint, the Assistant Chief will evaluate the civil complaint to determine if a DIl should be initiated, which will trigger an OIPA review. The Department will add this new procedure to the Duty Manual by December of 2025.
Given Chief Joseph's assertion about an "overwhelming majority," it should be no burden for him to provide supporting data. The City Attorney could undoubtedly supply to both Chief Joseph and the OIPA the names and case numbers of Federal/State (county & small daims) over the past five years in which the City, SJPD or SJDP sworn employees are named as defendants. To limit the list, one could consider excluding certain cases such as car accidents without injury or other mutually agreed upon criteria.
Then Chief Joseph and the OIPA could review the list against cases which complaints have been filed in the Police Conduct Oversight Process. Only at that time, can an educated determination be made about whether the Assistant Chief's evaluation should be implemented or modified.
In sum, the City and the public should be ever vigilant that SJPD is being reliable, dependable, trustworthy and accountable with the power given to it. One should not accept assertions without questions. Take, for example, SJPD's statement on its public records website that, The San Jose Police Department is fully committed to complying with the law. And yet, item 3.9 on the council's agenda shows a million-dollar settlement resulting from a 2021 incident in which the suspect Tovar was shot by multiple officers and then bitten repeatedly by a K-9. The Federal District Court Judge ruled the actions of the K-9 officer amounted to "excessive force" as "a matter of law." If one looks at the SJPD's records archive, there is no entry for any of the subject officers in any related category (OIS, GBI or sustained force allegation). As you can see from the table below, the Tovar case is not an isolated incident. about blank 1/3
6/17/25, 10:01 AM FW: 6/17/25 CIVIL LAWSUITS AS Dils IS THE ONLY AVENUE TO OFFICER DISCIPLINE. - Agendadesk - Outlook Text and link from SJPD website
https://pd-sanjoseca.govqa.us/WEBAPP/ rs/(S(5xz0awzejrz53s4bwna1a20g))/openrecordssummary.aspx?view=6 Senate Bills 1421 and 16 Records Archive
California Senate Bills 1421 and 16 require certain peace officer personnel records and records relating to specified incidents, complaints, and investigations involving peace officers to be made available for public inspection pursuant to the California Public Records Act. These bills are codified in Penal Code section 832.7. The San Jose Police Department is fully committed to complying with the law. If you want to read the law in its entirety, click here.
Records will be publicly posted on the San Jose Police Department website when they are processed and released. Case types include the following:
• (b)(1) (A)(i): Officer Involved Shootings (O/S)
• (b) (1)(A)(i): Great Bodily Injury (GBI)
• (b)(1)(A)(ii)i: Sustained Unreasonable or Excessive Force (Excessive) Instructions and notes about the Senate Bills 1421 and 16 Records Archive grid below:
Keyword searches may be made by the following categories of information:
1. Case Type - See list above.
2. Subject Officers) - You may search by the first name or last name.
3. Date of incident
Table created from SB 1421/SB 16 Archive
about:blank 213
6/17/25, 10:01 AM FW: 6/17/25 CIVIL LAWSUITS AS DIls IS THE ONLY AVENUE TO OFFICER DISCIPLINE. - Agendadesk - Outlook Column 1 Column 2 Column 3
Jury award or Litigation Case # Incident date and subject officers' "NAME(S)" Does search by Does search by Does search settlement Officer's name show Officer's name by Officer's amount an entry under show an entry for show an entry
Great Bodily Injury Officer Involved for a sustained
(GBI) regarding shooting (OIS) force
event listed in regarding event allegation
column 3? listed in column regarding
3? event listed in
column 3?
3.6 million 19-Cv-01227 On 5/2/2018, Andy Martin was running on NO NO foot from officers trying to detain him. While
chasing Martin, Officer "ALEXANDER
RIBEIRO" hit him with a police car.
2.95 million 17-cv-03860 On 7/4/2016, Anthony Nunes was shot and NO NO NO killed by officers "MICHAEL SANTOS" and
'ANTHONY VIZZUSI"
1.6 million 5:22-Cv-00758 On 2/2/2020, Anthony Paredes was NO N/A NO subjected to a sustained dog bite to his neck.
The dog was commanded by Officer
"MICHAEL JEFFREY"
1.3 million 5:21-cv-01849 On 5/30/2020, James Adgar was struck in the NO NO NO back of his leg by a foam projectile filed by
Officer "JAMES ADGAR"
1 million 5:21-cv-02497 On 1/21/2021, David Tovar was shot by NO NO NO multiple rounds fired by multiple officers
("HANS JORGENSEN," "ALVARO LOPEZ,"
"JAMES SOH") While the suspect lay
wounded and motionless, Officer TOPUI
FONUA's K-9 repeatedly bit the suspect for 2
minutes and 40 seconds. The Federal District
Court Judge ruled the actions of the K-9
officer amounted to "excessive force" as "a
matter of law."
1 million 5:18-cv-04826 On 9/15/2017, Jacob Dominguez was shot NO NO NO and killed by Officer "MICHAEL PINA"
500,000 5:20-cv-04824 On 5/29/2020, Derrick Sanderlin was shot in NO NO NO the groin by Officer "MICHAEL PANIGHETTI"
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. about:blank 3/3