FRESNO, Calif. (KABC) -- Allegations of excessive force are being aimed at a police officer in Fresno after bodycam video shows a teen being repeatedly punched.
This video shows officers at an apartment complex looking for wanted gang members.
After one teen is frisked and told to sit down, an officer jumps on him and starts punching him multiple times.
Audio transcript from police body camera: "Attention, apartment 204, this is the Fresno Police Department. If you're inside make your presence known."
"Hey, don't touch my little brother."
WATCH: Body camera footage captures the confrontation
Police now say 17-year-old London Wallace has no gang affiliations and no criminal history.
The teen was initially charged with resisting arrest, but after seeing the bodycam video, prosecutors have now dropped all charges.
Fresno police have now launched an internal affairs investigation, and Wallace has filed an excessive force lawsuit against the department.
"It's a very disappointing situation. You can see London Wallace crying. You can see him bleeding," said attorney Nolan Kane.
London Wallace had no gang connections and no criminal history.
"He's a high school kid. He likes playing basketball. He's a nice, calm, timid person," Kane said. "And you can kind of see that in the video. He's not used to police contact."
Officer Christopher Martinez wrote in his report that he thought Wallace was going to try to run away. He said he punched Wallace three times in the face, which let the officer get his back off the second story balcony railing.
Legal analyst Ralph Torres says police usually have a built-in civil lawsuit defense of fearing for the officer's safety.
"But in this case, the kid was patted down. There was nothing there," Torres said. "And I don't see anything that was consistent with an officer basically putting his fist right through his face." Nolan Kane says it's important for the public to see the body camera footage so they can get the full picture, which often benefits police, but not in this case.
"In this case, it's not going to be London's word against the officer's word. The jury's going to get to see the full footage and they'll be able to decide whether this is something that's acceptable," Kane said.
Police chief Jerry Dyer saw the video for the first time Tuesday.
"I can tell you after looking at the video that it is disturbing to see what occurred in the video," Dyer said.
An initial use of force investigation didn't find the officer used excessive force, but Chief Dyer says there's now an internal affairs investigation. He says there are a lot of different angles and different people may have different perspectives, but the investigation will be conducted quickly and it could possibly lead to discipline.
Upon reading the posted article, I encountered an irresistible desire to know why were the police there in the first place. It just seems a strange thing to omit from the story.
Police chief Jerry Dyer says he saw the video for the first time Tuesday after Action News asked for comment. An initial use of force investigation did not find excessive force by the officer, and Dyer says the investigation didn't rise to his level, ending on the desk of a deputy chief he would not name.
In a press conference Wednesday, Dyer said the confrontation seen in the video happened on January 23, when detectives from the Multi-Agency Gang Enforcement Consortium were conducting a probation search of an apartment. He said there were several known gang members and firearms present.
Wallace, who has no criminal history, was in a bedroom at the time.
Dyer said a family member emailed the department on March 25, indicating they wanted to lodge a complaint, but according to police, they couldn't locate that person until May 7. The internal affairs investigation was prompted once they obtained a recorded statement.
"I'm asking people reserve final judgment until the entire investigation is complete and findings are rendered," Dyer said.
In addition to looking for witnesses and conducting officer interviews, they'll be reviewing 40 body-worn cameras that were there.
The chief said he has asked those findings be expedited within the next 30 days.
Based on the outcome, he said appropriate action will be taken.
Officer Martinez has been placed on routine modified duty at a desk instead of on the streets.
The cops are dealing with rabid, feral animals here. They chose their life. This is part of it.
An apartment filled with gang members and their guns, and an ongoing parole check, is an extremely dangerous situation. It is imperative that the police immediately establish absolute control over everybody present. One unruly dipshit cannot be permitted to create a distraction. The cops had to do whatever it took to establish absolute control, and do it without delay.
London Wallace had no gang connections.... He's a nice, calm, timid person....
The thread article omitted that timid London Wallace, with no gang connections, was in an apartment with gang members and their guns, and the cops were there for a probation check.
Perhaps next time timid London Wallace, when in the company of his thug friends, will be more compliant.
The thread article omitted that timid London Wallace, with no gang connections, was in an apartment with gang members and their guns, and the cops were there for a probation check.
The kid said barely a word before the cop just hauled off and started punching him. The kid was not resisting, wasn't really struggling with the cop.
I'm a little surprised you would choose this case as justifiable use of force.
But the D.A. disagrees with and has already dropped the charges. I would expect a settlement from the PD (paid for by taxpayers) for $50K or so. When the D.A. drops charges that quick, they know it's a stinker and they'd better settle quick.
The kid said barely a word before the cop just hauled off and started punching him. The kid was not resisting, wasn't really struggling with the cop.
The video is very short and there is no context. Add the context that it was a parole check in an apartment of gang members with guns. If you want to go in there and play Mother Teresa, go right ahead.
But the D.A. disagrees with and has already dropped the charges.
Just how does dropping charges against the yute equate to a finding of unjustifiable use of force by the cop??? The only finding announced on that so far is that it was a justified use of force. Do you have some uncited source where the D.A. found the use of force to be unjustified?
Just how does dropping charges against the yute equate to a finding of unjustifiable use of force by the cop?
Normally, if there is any basis for prosecution, the D.A. will hold out on that. Only if they know the case is a total loser will they drop the charges.
That kid is going to get a sizable settlement. I'm not sure why you don't see it.
Normally, if there is any basis for prosecution, the D.A. will hold out on that. Only if they know the case is a total loser will they drop the charges.
So, how does that equal charges against the cop?
That kid is going to get a sizable settlement. I'm not sure why you don't see it.
Sizeable settlements can be handed out for political reasons. A settlement almost always means no admission of guilt. Where is the connection to prosecution of the cop?
At #8 you stated,
I'm a little surprised you would choose this case as justifiable use of force.
But the D.A. disagrees with and has already dropped the charges.
Do the to circumstances, failure to immediately secure complete control of the room could have been fatal for the cops. It is difficult to find the cop's actions to be criminal when anything else may have endangered the lives of all the cops.
Here's my showing that the only finding to date didn't find the officer used excessive force.
Police chief Jerry Dyer saw the video for the first time Tuesday.
"I can tell you after looking at the video that it is disturbing to see what occurred in the video," Dyer said.
An initial use of force investigation didn't find the officer used excessive force, but Chief Dyer says there's now an internal affairs investigation. He says there are a lot of different angles and different people may have different perspectives, but the investigation will be conducted quickly and it could possibly lead to discipline.
I do not yet see what justified your comment that "the D.A. disagrees" with the prior finding of justifiable use of force. This case is from January. It is not like the issue of justifiable force just came up. The officer involved has not been disciplined, much less charged criminally. The D.A. has not issued a contrary opinion and it is the police who are conducting an internal affairs investigation, not the D.A. who is pursuing some mythical criminal investigation.
I don't think I suggested that it would. I did say that when charges get dropped fast like that, it usually means a settlement for the victim.
The rule of thumb is that the perpetrator walks free if it is a cop. I didn't think this case was any different.
Do the to circumstances, failure to immediately secure complete control of the room could have been fatal for the cops. It is difficult to find the cop's actions to be criminal when anything else may have endangered the lives of all the cops.
But can't that be used to justified any use of force?
I'm a little surprised you would choose this case as justifiable use of force.
But the D.A. disagrees with and has already dropped the charges.
Directly following the assertion that I chose this case as justifiable use of force, you continued, "But the D.A. disagrees with [something missing here]...." What did you assert that the D.A. disagreed with? It certainly appears to relate back to "justifiable use of force."
[nolu chan #18] So, how does that equal charges against the cop?
[Tooconservative #19] I don't think I suggested that it would. I did say that when charges get dropped fast like that, it usually means a settlement for the victim.
The dropping of the charge of resisting arrest against the teen does not mean he was a victim of something, or that he will get big bucks for not resisting arrest. He would not sue because he was wrongfully accused of resisting arrest.
A negative finding for resisting arrest does not equate to unjustifiable use of force by the cop, just a flawed charge. I do not see evidence of resisting arrest. I did not see evidence that the kid knew he was being arrested prior to the altercation. I did not even see evidence that the cop was thinking of an arrest at that time. The cop was securing the scene, not arresting a perp.
A more appropriate charge would have involved failure to comply in a timely manner, perhaps framed as interference in the administration of justice or whatever specific language is locally used. Even here, it appears to be an act that would justify the officer's use of force, but not justify a criminal charge against the yute. Junior's acted stupidly, not criminally, but his actions endnagered the lives of everyone present. The still video grab shown in the article appears to indistinctly show at least one other individual spread out on the floor. While there is insufficient information to draw a firm conclusion, it appears an order was issued to get on the floor and there had been time to comply.
While Junior had a cop tasked with getting him on the floor, Junior appears to be non-compliant and desirous of entering into a verbal discussion of the matter. He seems to have lacked the maturity of his more experienced seniors who appear to have recognized that the situation did not allow for that. The first mission for the cops was to secure that scene, not to win a debate about it. Just one idiot going for a gun could get a lot of people killed. Other cops had their own subjects taking their undivided attention. Junior was faced with the choice of getting on the floor or being put on the floor. It appears his more experienced companions made a wiser choice than Junior.
The D.A. is not directly involved with any civil litigation. He has no direct involvement in whether a settlement is offered. He prosecutes criminal actions. Any allegation of wrongful use of force has not even been referred to the D.A. It lies with the police internal affairs division.
[nolu chan #18] Do the to circumstances, failure to immediately secure complete control of the room could have been fatal for the cops. It is difficult to find the cop's actions to be criminal when anything else may have endangered the lives of all the cops.
[Tooconservative #19] But can't that be used to justified any use of force?
No, it does not. It can be used to justify the use of whatever force was necessary to secure the scene and the safety of the officers. It would not justify shooting Junior just to get him on the floor, where a lesser use of force was adequate.
Very clever. I liked it. Here's the bar scene from Inglorious Basterds. The German SS officer is real. The rest of the table are American and British spies.
