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.
Looking back to review the article, I still don't see why you're so confident that this was a legit arrest and use of force.
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.
The kid was disarmed and not resisting. He wasn't under arrest. He was a bystander with no criminal record who happened to be in an apartment in a complex. We don't know if the victim was actually a resident of that apartment or not or why there were a number of young men present or whether those young men constituted a criminal gang or people breaking the law. Or whether the victim just stopped in for a few minutes to see a classmate and all these thuggish types the cops were shaking down were present when the raid was launched. And the single most damning statement is the one by the police chief. They don't say their officer was "disturbing" if they're actually backing up his legitimate arrest. At least, I've never read such a case.
Any competent civil attorney is going to have a field day with this in court. Or he would if the city wasn't going to settle first.
The kid was disarmed and not resisting. He wasn't under arrest. He was a bystander with no criminal record who happened to be in an apartment in a complex. We don't know if the victim was actually a resident of that apartment or not or why there were a number of young men present or whether those young men constituted a criminal gang or people breaking the law. Or whether the victim just stopped in for a few minutes to see a classmate and all these thuggish types the cops were shaking down were present when the raid was launched. And the single most damning statement is the one by the police chief. They don't say their officer was "disturbing" if they're actually backing up his legitimate arrest. At least, I've never read such a case.
The kid was unarmed, not disarmed. We do know his was attending a party, and not a resident of the apartment. We know people were attending a party. Wallace was told to sit and got up in the officer's face. Call it what you will.
Or whether the victim just stopped in for a few minutes to see a classmate
Oh, please. And Fresno police conducted a probation search for domestic violence.
His claim is use of excessive force. It is a civil suit.
The D.A. does not proceed to trial when he may have an embarrassing lack of proof. Some municipality officials do throw away taxpayer money to settle civil suits and win votes. Heck, it's not like it's his money. The D.A. does not do it. The D.A. only handles criminal prosecutions. The civil litigation would handled elsewhere.
Kane [nc - Wallace's attorney] said Wallace, 17, and several others were attending a birthday party at the complex when Fresno police conducted a probation search for domestic violence.
In the body cam footage, Wallace places his hands behind his head with his fingers locked as a pair of officers pat him down.
After Wallace is done being patted down, one of the officers says a few words to Wallace and points toward the ground where other people are sitting down.
Within five seconds, Martinez confronts Wallace and grabs the teen’s arm.
Wallace yelled back at Martinez.
Then a man who claimed to be Wallace’s brother, Patrick Beard, yells: “Hey, don’t touch my little brother.”
Almost simultaneously, Martinez unleashes a fury of punches at Wallace’s head.
“I noticed Wallace was not listening,” Martinez said, according to a Fresno police report. “I believed Wallace was going to attempt to flee. …
“I punched Wallace approximately three times in the face in order to get him off me and to back him up. …”
“By punching Wallace in the face,” Martinez added, “I received the desired effect, creating the distance between me and Wallace, which allowed me to get my back off of the second story balcony railing.”
Body cam footage goes on to show Wallace wrestled to the ground by officers and police struggling to get both of his hands behind his back and handcuff him.
Eventually the body cam footage shows Wallace in tears, with blood on the side of his right eye, along with a bloody nose and bloody mouth. Kane said Wallace suffered a broken nose.
“I ain’t do nothing to you,” Wallace appears to say to police. “I didn’t do (sic) to nobody.”
Wallace was arrested that day on accusations of resisting arrest and obstruction.
The charges were later dropped.
“What you see is an officer who is unprovoked but taking irresponsible actions against a minor who was of no threat to the officers or their investigation,” Kane said. “My firm has had several cases against the city and county where no criminal charges were ever brought against the officers for excessive force.
“We do recognize a pattern. Hopefully, a jury will, too.”
- - - - - - - - - -
Any competent civil attorney is going to have a field day with this in court. Or he would if the city wasn't going to settle first.
It is the land of fruits and nuts, where tens of thousands shit and piss on the sidewalks, so who knows.
We now know that Wallace dindu nuthin to nobody.
Just how long should the officer debate with the yute about the yute sitting down???
Is 5 seconds sufficient, or is 60 seconds called for as in a presidential debate?
“I punched Wallace approximately three times in the face in order to get him off me and to back him up. …”
You're delusional if you believe that statement after you've seen the video.
This is why the local top cop won't back up his officer. And they never make such statements if they are backing the officer. Their lawyers would warn them not to compromise the PD's legal position by handing such legal ammo in admissible official statements.
Oh, please. And Fresno police conducted a probation search for domestic violence.
I didn't see domestic violence. I saw police violence against a kid with no criminal record who barely opened his mouth at all before he got punched multiple times, very violently. Apparently you saw something different there. Was the big burly cop actually that frightened of the teenager that weighed half as much as him and who wasn't trained in physical violence? Is this just another outbreak of FraidyCops who use "officer safety" as a get-out-of-jail-free card when they exceed any reasonable level of judgment. To be honest, the officer looks like he's melting down in a 'roid rage. There's something downright psychotic about the way he goes after the victim.
Just how long should the officer debate with the yute about the yute sitting down???
I dunno. If a cop stops you for speeding and asks for your documents and you are in a hurry and trying to talk him out of it for just 5 seconds, is that cop legally entitled to start punching you hard in the face to force your compliance? You wouldn't object to taking three hard punches from a burly officer if you tried to "resist" for 5 seconds, would you?
I think you wouldn't like that. I think a jury won't either. Except they are going to settle this before a jury does in a civil suit.
A high school kid with no record and a baby face who is unarmed and already submitted to a search and has been recorded on video by police (making escape unlikely to be anything other than a basis for serious charges) is not likely to be the gangbangers that the cops were raiding the joint to find.
But believe what you want. Like I care that deeply which brutal cop you want to suckle next. You've always got a new one to admire, it seems. And you're such a Johnny-one-note on this topic that no one expects any kind of balance at all from you.
