Over the course of more than a week, A News Cafe reached out to the Redding Police Department several times seeking comment regarding the Aug. 24 incident involving several RPD officers and a pair of teen BMX bike riders.
To date, RPD has not responded.
In the absence of RPD’s input, A News Cafe reached out to a highly respected California Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) recognized police-use-of-force expert. They have worked for a large Southern California police department. They agreed to view the video, and offer some insights, as long as their name was not disclosed in this story, as to not jeopardize ongoing North State law enforcement relationships.
Q: What would you say was the probable cause for stopping the teens on the BMX bikes?
A: The probable cause for stopping the bicyclist is not shown in the video. The actual criminal violation witnessed by the police officer, as a traffic infraction(s) appear to be the issue). Therefore, I didn’t see what happened at the DUI checkpoint or how the officer ascertained the bicycle didn’t have brakes. I didn’t hear the officer tell the bicyclist the reason he stopped him (maybe it was provided but was inaudible on my video), i.e., the probable cause. I can’t tell if not having brakes is the reason or was an observation after the traffic stop. My understanding of the new California law is that a police officer is now required to provide the reason someone is stopped for a traffic violation.
Q: What are your thoughts about the way the teens were detained?
A: I did not see how the detention occurred, as it obviously occurred prior to the start of the video. If the officer, especially being in uniform, simply said “stop” (or something equivalent) to the bicyclist, that would be sufficient.
Q: What does the law say regarding rules of the road?
A: California Vehicle Code (CVC) says in part about bicycles: The traffic “rules of the road” apply to bicycles, as do specific bicycle requirements. The bicycle lane is indeed part of the roadway. Bicycles on the roadway (vs. a BMX park) are indeed required to have a brake. Bicyclists on the roadway are like drivers under the CVC, but are not required to have a driver license. An officer might often ask for one from a bicyclist, as the bicyclist might have one and it is a common form of identification.
Q: What are your initial reactions regarding the teens’ interactions with the officers?
A: Obviously, the bicyclist is loud and argumentative with the officer, and is video recording the officer with a phone. All of those things are lawful and protected by the First Amendment. Police agency policies typically reflect that. From a human point of view, they are one of the many difficult aspects of policing. Nonetheless, being able to maintain self-control and conduct a proper and lawful investigation is what society and the law requires of peace officers. I did not see any action by the bicyclist which might reasonably be seen as a physical threat to the officer. The bicyclist declined to provide his name when asked for it by the officer. A person is under no Constitutional or legal requirement to identify themselves to a peace officer, unless they are lawfully detained or arrested for an actual or suspected crime. The person needs to be told by an officer they are detained or arrested.
Q: How about your initial reactions to the officers’ actions?
A: The officer was not yelling (i.e., reacting “in kind” to the bicyclist) or using any profanity I heard. Nonetheless, I didn’t hear the officer use any of the common de-escalation tactics taught to California peace officers. I never heard the officer tell the bicyclist he intended to cite him for a traffic (CVC) violation. I heard the officer repeatedly tell the bicyclist to sit down. I heard the bicyclist say he didn’t want to sit down. I never heard the officer give the bicyclist a reason he wanted him to sit down, warn him of what might happen if he didn’t sit down, or warn him of being arrested if he did not sit down. If the officer viewed the bicyclist not sitting down as a violation of California Penal Code 148 (resisting, delaying, or obstructing an officer in the performance of his/her duties) and intended to arrest the bicyclist for such, I never heard the officer tell the bicyclist he was under arrest. I never heard the officer tell the bicyclist to raise his hands, turn around, and interlock his fingers behind his head. That would be the standard approach for arresting someone who is not physically threatening the officer (e.g., giving the officer “the finger” and saying, “You’re not touching me!” or someone raising fists and saying, “I’m gonna kick your ass!”, etc.). All of these factors raise the possibility the officer’s use of force was excessive and unlawful force.
Q: So, is there a possible case that officers used excessive force?
A: I noted there were 41 seconds from the start of the video to the officer’s use of force. I never heard the officer ask for a backup officer. There did not appear to be a backup officer assisting the officer, although other officers were obviously nearby. The officer suddenly initiated action to force the bicyclist to the ground, although it did not appear to be a trained takedown technique. I never heard the officer tell the bicyclist he was under arrest during the “takedown” or offer the bicyclist an opportunity to submit to arrest, prior to “the takedown.”
Q: How about the use of pepper spray by the second officer?
A: By the time the second officer is there, the first officer has the bicyclist face down on the ground and his left arm pinned behind his back. Pepper spray is categorized as “intermediate force” and is legally justified against “active resistance” (generally defined as conduct ranging from the threat of violence or the use of physical force against an officer).
The most helpful and proper tactic would be for the second officer to gain control of the bicyclist’s right arm and bring it behind his back, to allow for handcuffing. Instead, the second officer appears to spray the bicyclist in the face with OC (Oleoresin Capsicum), from mere inches away. OC comes out in a straight stream and under significant pressure. Consequently, police agency policy typically prohibits using OC that close to a person’s face/eyes, as does the manufacturer’s directions for use, due to the risk of significant injury to a person (especially the eyes). Using OC in such a way and situation also serves no practical purpose, as the person was already pinned on the ground by the first officer and was not physically attacking the officer (biting, punching, kicking, etc.).
Further, the effect of the OC on a person would be intense pain, but serve no practical advantage in gaining control of the person (i.e., he was already pinned on the ground). It is not an OC tactic taught in any lawful and approved use of force training I am aware of. The situation raises the possibility it was merely a punitive measure, which would inherently be excessive and unlawful force.
Q: Your thoughts about the detention and arrest of the second bicyclist?
A: Along with the first bicyclist, the second bicyclist was lawfully videotaping the encounter with his phone. When the first bicyclist was physically arrested, the second bicyclist continued videotaping, along with yelling at the officers to stop what they were doing. He did not appear to physically interfere with the above two officers. If he did not move from his initial position, he has an even stronger argument he was not interfering. The general standard is this – a person recording a police encounter cannot take any action which would reasonably cause an officer to believe the person is interfering with the police action or becoming a threat to the officer. The act of recording is by definition not interference. The detention of the second bicyclist (and therefore stopping him from recording) is very questionable.
Q: What are the rules for bicyclists or even pedestrians at a DUI checkpoint?
A: Pedestrians no, bicyclists yes, as far as I know, especially if the bicyclist is in the roadway (which includes the bicycle lane).
Q: Final question: What are the rules about notifying minors’ parents about incidents involving law enforcement?
A: The last I recall, if an officer takes a juvenile (under 18) into physical custody (to a police station or juvenile hall), the officer is required to contact a parent as soon as possible.
Thank you so much for answering questions to help us understand California law with regard to not just vehicle codes, but proper procedures pertaining to detention, pepper spray, probable cause and excessive use of police force. Much appreciated!
