Montrose, CA — Renowned private investigator Ken Sheppard parked his black Chevy Tahoe on a street in Montrose, California, on March 3, 2014, to conduct surveillance for a workers’ compensation fraud case, when several Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputies took it upon themselves to accost and harass him — for having tinted windows.
No one in the neighborhood called to report a suspicious, out-of-place individual — or for any other reason — yet these overzealous agents of the state pulled up behind Sheppard’s vehicle under that assumption, and approached with weapons drawn.
Fortunately, Sheppard’s occupation meant his vehicle was outfitted with plenty of video recording equipment. Unfortunately, the irrational and obviously terrified officers couldn’t fathom the black man had a wholly legitimate reason to be parked in the largely white neighborhood — even though residents didn’t seem to care.
As journalist Jasmyne Cannick reports, the private investigator’s Tahoe did, indeed, have tinted rear and side windows — as would be necessary to effectively do his job — and was insured for $3 million. By all accounts, it would appear the deputies didn’t bother with even a cursory investigation of Sheppard’s plates before assuming he had no business in Montrose.
Deputy Plunkett, who eventually identifies himself, exited his patrol car with his gun drawn and walked to the driver’s side of the SUV. Sheppard, aware he’d been cased and profiled incorrectly by the feckless officer, rolled down the window and immediately showed both hands to prove he didn’t have a weapon.
In video footage, Sheppard politely, understandably, and immediately requests the deputy holster his weapon — but Plunkett gets in the man’s face, and peers into the vehicle, and in a confrontational matter, says,
“What do you mean, ‘holster my weapon’?”
“Well, you’re pulling your weapon, so I’m telling you holster your weapon, because you’ve got nothing to fear,” Sheppard calmly responds. “My hands are clearly in sight.”
Plunkett seems intent on starting trouble. In fact, were it not for his costume and shiny badge, his actions would be considered blatant and unjustified harassment and intimidation.
“What are you doing?” the deputy asks with contempt in his eyes.
“I’m sitting here in my vehicle, working,” the private investigator replies with amazing restraint.
“You some kind of P.I. or something?” Plunkett retorts.
“Does it appear that I’m doing something illegal?”
“I don’t know,” the deputy says, essentially proving the man’s point.
By this time, it has become obvious from the officer’s face he has no intention of either backing down, listening to reason, or treating Sheppard with decency and respect — despite his having done nothing illegal, and, again, no calls had been made to report suspicious activity in the area.
“Step out for me,” Plunkett says, grabbing Sheppard’s wrist.
Perturbed by the unmitigated lunacy of being accosted by this unreasonable thug in uniform, Sheppard politely and firmly asks the officer to “please remove” his hand and summon his watch commander to the scene.
But his valid and repeated request for the supervisor — made at least eight times — falls on the deaf ears of the irrational Plunkett, who then leans in, asking if anyone else is in the SUV. Yet again, the deputy then needlessly escalates the situation by telling Sheppard he’s being uncooperative — forgetting, of course, that he has yet to provide the man with any reason, much less a valid one, for accosting him, grabbing his arm, or ordering him from the vehicle.
Plunkett’s hand visibly shakes, as Cannick points out, as he continues grasping Sheppard’s wrist — making the fact he refuses to holster his service weapon a potentially life-threatening concern.
Sheppard repeats his requests for Plunkett to remove his hand, holster the weapon, and summon the supervisor numerous times to no avail.
“I didn’t hear you call for your watch commander,” Sheppard tells the petrified deputy.
“We’ll get to all that … when we’re done with you,” Plunkett says.
At one point during this fruitless exchange, Plunkett requests backup — but not the watch commander — and eventually releases the man’s wrist. Sheppard, using the same hand in full view of the officer, reaches slowly to remove a bluetooth device from his left ear. Even though Plunkett can see precisely what Sheppard is doing — reaching up to his ear, not down into the vehicle where the officer might have perceived the action as grabbing a weapon — the deputy swiftly points his gun at the man’s head.
“Don’t fuckin’ reach, I told you not to,” the terrified deputy says, nervously pointing his gun just inches from Sheppard’s head, even though he never said such a thing. Besides trembling hands, video shows the pulse in Plunkett’s neck pounding.
“Do not be fucking reaching,” he repeats.
Deputy Rodriguez, identified in court documents, arrives on the scene, also with her weapon needlessly drawn. Sergeant Hollis soon joins them, followed by Deputy Hanson — taser at the ready — and Sheppard explains the absurd situation as Plunkett continues nervously pointing the gun, requesting the more senior officer order Plunkett to holster the weapon.
Eventually, Hollis relents and calmly asks the deputy not to aim the firearm at the man’s head.
The sergeant then requests Sheppard exit the vehicle and Rodriguez immediately places cuffs on his wrists, barely giving enough time for him to comply with the order to turn around.
After placing Sheppard in the back of a waiting patrol car, officers proceed to search the SUV — without even the suspicion of the commission of a crime.
But the cops haven’t finished with the innocent man — and what happens next is truly astonishing given he’d done nothing wrong in the first place.
With the Tahoe’s recording devices rolling, these sheriff’s deputies — who apparently had nothing better to do than waste taxpayer money to intimidate and threaten an innocent individual — conspire to fabricate charges.
Cannick cites court documents in the matter, which state:
“During the course of the next several minutes, the deputies on scene conspired to concoct a citable offense against Mr. Sheppard. These law enforcement officials attempted to justify Deputy Plunkett’s actions, ex post facto. Most critically, Deputy Hanson and Deputy Ramirez drafted a citation that was ultimately signed by Deputy Plunkett. Neither Deputy Hanson nor Deputy Ramirez was willing to personally sign the citation, after engaging in a lengthy discussion concerning the contents of said citation. As she was attempting to creatively fashion charges to be brought against Mr. Sheppard within the aforementioned citation, Deputy Hanson stated, ‘please, just let me taser him.’”
Ultimately, Sheppard received citations for tinted windows and missing plates — even though temporary, paper plates were properly posted on the rear of the Tahoe with registration in the windshield as required by law.
Sheppard filed a civil lawsuit in federal court in 2015 over the absurdly unjust incident for, Cannick writes, “violation of his constitutional rights, assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress and various other charges.”
Despite the telling video footage — showing all these allegations to be true — a jury last week found in favor of the sheriff’s department.
Sheppard — who, during the encounter, tells Sgt. Hollis he just finished a lawsuit with the same department over similar misconduct — plans to appeal his case.
Harassment, intimidation, entertaining the idea of tasering someone for no conceivable reason, putting a gun to an innocent person’s head, fabricating charges — even when no crime has been committed or suspected — this is what life is like in a police state.
#5: misterwhite To: Deckard (#0)
Aha! A black man in a white neighborhood! No wonder the cops were suspicious.
Oh, wait. He had tinted windows. The cops couldn't know he was black. Why did the author bring race into it?
misterwhite posted on 2016-09-24 09:20:16 Reply Private Reply
#6: misterwhite To: Deckard (#0)
So THAT'S why the cops approached the car to begin with. Well, why didn't the author say that at the beginning of the article? This guy is a private investigator and doesn't know the law?
misterwhite posted on 2016-09-24 09:25:55 Reply Private Reply
#7: Deckard To: misterwhite (#6)
If the proper identification was visible, the cops had no business bothering him in the first place.
Once the cops determined the fact that this man was there on legitimate business and was not engaged in criminal activity, they should have just left him the fuck alone.
Deckard posted on 2016-09-24 10:48:58 Reply Private Reply
#8: misterwhite To: Deckard (#7)
If that paper identification was posted inside the tinted windows it couldn't be seen from the outside.
"the cops had no business bothering him in the first place.
He had tinted windows. That's against the law.
"Once the cops determined the fact that this man was there on legitimate business and was not engaged in criminal activity, they should have just left him the fuck alone."
Had he acted normally instead of like an asshole, I'm sure they would have.
misterwhite posted on 2016-09-24 11:08:57 Reply Private Reply
#9: Deckard To: misterwhite (#8)
He had tinted windows - which are necessary for the occupation he is in. Once the cop had determined that, he should have left the man alone or at most written him a citation for the windows.
But the cop did not do that, did he?
Had he acted normally instead of like an asshole...
There is no indication that he "acted like an asshole", unless of course you mean knowing his rights and interacting with the cop in a calm and rational manner.
Deckard posted on 2016-09-24 12:17:18 Reply Private Reply
#10: misterwhite To: Deckard (#9)
So if tinted windows are illegal -- except for private investigators -- well, he's going to stand out like a sore thumb and everyone's going to know who he is.
"or at most written him a citation for the windows."
That's what they did. WTF is your problem?
misterwhite posted on 2016-09-24 13:13:35 Reply Private Reply
#11: Pinguinite To: misterwhite (#8)
It was the cops who behaved as paranoid assholes, not the PI.
There needs to be a course added to high school or middle school curriculums on how to behave around police to avoid giving them a reason to fear for their lives.
Pinguinite posted on 2016-09-24 13:22:29 Reply Private Reply
#12: Deckard To: misterwhite (#10)
Cannick cites court documents in the matter, which state:
“During the course of the next several minutes, the deputies on scene conspired to concoct a citable offense against Mr. Sheppard. These law enforcement officials attempted to justify Deputy Plunkett’s actions, ex post facto. Most critically, Deputy Hanson and Deputy Ramirez drafted a citation that was ultimately signed by Deputy Plunkett.
Neither Deputy Hanson nor Deputy Ramirez was willing to personally sign the citation, after engaging in a lengthy discussion concerning the contents of said citation. As she was attempting to creatively fashion charges to be brought against Mr. Sheppard within the aforementioned citation, Deputy Hanson stated,
‘please, just let me taser him.’”Is conspiring to fabricate charges against an innocent man an example of honest police work?
Deckard posted on 2016-09-24 13:32:11 Reply Private Reply
#13: Gatlin To: Deckard, misterwhite (#12)
What were the “fabricated charges?”
I reas that “Sheppard received citations for tinted windows and missing plates” and nowhere is it stated that he is contesting those citations.
Gatlin posted on 2016-09-24 13:49:29 Reply Private Reply
#14: Gatlin To: Deckard, misterwhite (#3)
Was there a video or audio recording of that or was that simply a statement by Sheppard extracted from "court records?"
Just becuase something is taken from "court records" does not in any way certify it as factual.
Gatlin posted on 2016-09-24 13:57:34 Reply Private Reply
#15: Deckard To: Gatlin (#14)
Are you insane?
You really think that court records are made up of lies?
Deckard posted on 2016-09-24 13:59:50 Reply Private Reply
#16: Deckard To: Gatlin (#13)
They conspired to fabricate charges.
Learn to read.
Deckard posted on 2016-09-24 14:01:10 Reply Private Reply
#17: Gatlin To: Deckard (#15)
Are you too stupid to realize that of course there are lies in court records.
What you posted was a statement by Sheppard that was copied from a court record. There is no indication that was the truth, it was only his sworn testimony to support HIS contentions.
With your anti-government disposition, you should not be surprised to learn that court records contain lies….there is shocking proof that some state prosecutors are liars and some state prosecutors knowingly present liars as witnesses. To them, winning is everything.
Gatlin posted on 2016-09-24 16:40:51 Reply Private Reply
#18: Gatlin To: Deckard (#15)
My God, man….there are a jillion examples where court records contain lies. Here is but one:
Gatlin posted on 2016-09-24 16:51:10 Reply Private Reply
#19: Deckard To: Gatlin (#17)
Oh - I guess the recordings made by Sheppard are false as well?
With the Tahoe’s recording devices rolling, these sheriff’s deputies — who apparently had nothing better to do than waste taxpayer money to intimidate and threaten an innocent individual — conspire to fabricate charges.
Frigging simpleton.
Deckard posted on 2016-09-24 16:51:21 Reply Private Reply
#20: Gatlin To: Deckard (#19)
I did not say that.
I said Sheppard's "statement" in the court record may not be the truth.
You accepted his statement in the court record as TRUTH simply because it was in court records.
Gatlin posted on 2016-09-24 16:56:42 Reply Private Reply
#21: Gatlin To: Deckard (#19)
That is a reporter's statement....that is not factual evidence.
Gatlin posted on 2016-09-24 16:58:22 Reply Private Reply
#22: Deckard To: Gatlin (#20)
The "statement" was obviously made in reference to the video/audio evidence.
Deckard posted on 2016-09-24 17:03:33 Reply Private Reply
#23: ConservingFreedom To: Deckard, Gatlin (#2)
Gatlin on the O.J. Simpson murder (if he's consistent): He was found not guilty - that's all anyone needs to know; I hope they find the real killer some day.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-09-24 17:19:20 Reply Private Reply
#24: Gatlin To: ConservingFreedom (#23)
That is is not the way I look at it....you cannot say what I think and you cannot speak for me.
On the O.J. Simpson murder (and I am consistent): He was found not guilty – and that’s all anyone could do about it at the time; and that is the way it will stand unless they find someone some day to reopen the case and bring them to trial for the murders.
Gatlin posted on 2016-09-24 17:53:40 Reply Private Reply
#25: Gatlin To: Deckard (#22)
It is still his biased opinion to support his case. The jury will need to decide if the the officers were “conspiring” or simply conferring about the law violation he was going to be cited for.
Gatlin posted on 2016-09-24 18:00:03 Reply Private Reply
#26: Gatlin To: Deckard (#16)
You don't KNOW that is what they did.
You only read that is what someone ALLEGED they did
Gatlin posted on 2016-09-24 18:02:59 Reply Private Reply
#27: Gatlin To: Deckard, misterwhite (#7)
What “temporary paper plates [were] properly posted on the rear of the Tahoe?”
In many states, a dealer is required to issue you plates when you buy a new car, or you're given a temporary plate that is displayed prominently in the rear window. But not in California. California car dealerships do not issue a paper license plate on the back window vehicles just sold. Rather than a paper license plate on the back window, a temporary registration in the form of a notecard-sized piece of paper on the front windshield with print so tiny that it looks like it came from the extended warranty on a laptop computer.
At some point, you gullible asshole….you need to stop blindly believing everything you want to believe and do some fact checking.
Gatlin posted on 2016-09-24 21:56:12 Reply Private Reply
#28: buckeroo To: Gatlin (#27)
I hate to step on your toes, but didn't you support and defend yukon about his gayness?
buckeroo posted on 2016-09-24 22:18:26 Reply Private Reply
#29: Deckard To: Gatlin (#25)
Huh, what?
I didn't realize audio/video recordings could be "biased" or have "opinions".
The reporter was simply reporting the facts.
Deckard posted on 2016-09-24 22:28:44 Reply Private Reply
#30: Deckard To: Gatlin (#27)
— even though temporary, paper plates were properly posted on the rear of the Tahoe with registration in the windshield as required by law..
In addition he was insured for $3 million dollars.
Deckard posted on 2016-09-24 22:30:41 Reply Private Reply
#31: Gatlin To: Deckard (#29)
When officers are consulting on which law to charge him with, they are consulting NOT conspiring.
Gatlin posted on 2016-09-24 22:31:15 Reply Private Reply
#32: GrandIsland To: Deckard (#29)
Will you make the ultimate sacrifice, so your other drug addict loving PAULTARDS can protest the shooting of an unarmed asshole?
GrandIsland posted on 2016-09-24 22:32:44 Reply Private Reply
#33: Gatlin To: buckeroo (#28)
Gatlin posted on 2016-09-24 22:33:03 Reply Private Reply
#34: Deckard To: Gatlin (#31)
When a person is not guilty of anything, it's no longer consulting, it's "concocting".
Deckard posted on 2016-09-24 22:36:03 Reply Private Reply
#35: Gatlin To: Deckard (#30)
Huh?
You stupid Paultard asshole, I would assume a Tahoe insured for $3 million would be new.
The Author LIED.
California dealerships do not issue a temporary paoer plate placed on the rear.
Get it through your thick skull, the author lied.
Gatlin posted on 2016-09-24 22:38:18 Reply Private Reply
#36: Gatlin To: Deckard (#34)
Gatlin posted on 2016-09-24 22:39:28 Reply Private Reply
#37: Deckard To: Gatlin (#35)
From your own link:
...people who recently bought a car simply drive around for a while — nobody knows how long — with those brightly-colored license plate inserts that dealerships put on all the cars that sit on their lots. Seriously: an enormous portion of cars in California drive around every single day with a "Toyota of San Whatever" license plate insert as their sole form of valid registration. And this is legal.
He had a LEGAL plate and the card sized registration in the vehicle.
Blithering simpleton.
Deckard posted on 2016-09-24 22:41:53 Reply Private Reply
#38: Gatlin To: Deckard (#30)
From the article and your post”
He had NO LEGAL PLATE. The author LIED. California dealers do NOT issue a trmporary paper plate to be posted on the rear of the vehicle.
Gatlin posted on 2016-09-24 22:53:23 Reply Private Reply
#39: Gatlin To: Deckard (#37)
He had no LEGAL plate.
The article said he had a temporary paper plate posted on the rear of the Tahoe. California dealers do NOT issue any such plate.
You said he had "a card sized registration in the vehicle." That is a violation of the law. The card sized registration must be placed on the front windshield.
Lies....lies....and more lies.
Gatlin posted on 2016-09-24 22:57:46 Reply Private Reply
#40: Gatlin To: All (#39)
That is a LIE!!!
Gatlin posted on 2016-09-24 23:15:08 Reply Private Reply
#41: Hondo68 To: Gatlin, WOW tater is a tard (#40)
Oakland, CA license plate.
Hondo68 posted on 2016-09-24 23:44:00 Reply Private Reply
#42: Deckard To: hondo68 (#41)
Tater isn't even smart enough to read what it says at the link he himself posted.
Deckard posted on 2016-09-25 02:08:27 Reply Private Reply
#43: Gatlin To: Deckard (#42)
It is said that “cameras don’t lie” but someone interpreting a video trying to tell you what you are seeing can as in the case where a report concluded, “perceptions created by the HSUS [Humane Society of the United States] media releases and press conferences of malice, extreme cruelty, or illegal marketing of downer cows are not found to match the reality of the subject video.”
In at least one court case: “Sheppard testified he only interacted with the police once during the investigation. He called law enforcement to inform them that he was in the area conducting a surveillance.” If it was important for Sheppard to inform police that he was in the area that time conducting a surveillance, then why did he not inform law enforcement that day that he was in a Tahoe with “illegally tinted windows and no license plates” conducting surveillance?
Hmmm …
Gatlin posted on 2016-09-25 08:51:56 Reply Private Reply
#44: misterwhite To: Deckard (#9)
“I’m sitting here in my vehicle, working,” the private investigator replies ... "
“You some kind of P.I. or something?” Plunkett retorts."
“Does it appear that I’m doing something illegal?”
Why didn't he simply say, "Why, yes. I am." I'll tell you why. Because he's an asshole and therefore deserves to be treated like one.
misterwhite posted on 2016-09-25 10:08:25 Reply Private Reply
#45: Gatlin To: Deckard (#42)
Ole Tater was “smart enough to read” where it was said in the article that:
Ole Tater was “smart enough to read” in the link that:
Why were you, ole Paultard ignorant asshole not “smart enough” to also read all this and fully understand that the author of the article LIED.
Furthermore, you keep giving great credence to the videos.
Why are you not smart enough to know that videos can be edited to show a biased false conclusion especially after I have linked you to evidence proving that?
You need to learn how to recognize “Yellow Journalism.”
Gatlin posted on 2016-09-25 10:53:03 Reply Private Reply
#46: Gatlin To: misterwhite, Deckard (#44)
Sheppard had previously called law enforcement to inform them that he was in an area conducting a surveillance.
So why didn’t this time he simply say, “Why, yes, I am [a private investigator].”
Hmmm …
Got it!!!
Cha-Ching….$$$$$ - Cha-Ching….$$$$$ - Cha-Ching….$$$$$ …
Gatlin posted on 2016-09-25 11:14:05 Reply Private Reply
#47: misterwhite To: Gatlin (#46)
Yep. The PI business must be slow. Time to play the lawsuit lottery.
misterwhite posted on 2016-09-25 11:27:31 Reply Private Reply
#48: Gatlin To: misterwhite (#47)
Gatlin posted on 2016-09-25 11:45:57 Reply Private Reply
#49: Gatlin To: misterwhite (#47)
Gatlin posted on 2016-09-25 11:53:27 Reply Private Reply
#50: ConservingFreedom To: Gatlin (#24)
Then you're not consistent.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-09-26 13:31:24 Reply Private Reply
#51: Gatlin To: ConservingFreedom (#50)
You are correct and I find inconsistency should not be deemed a problem. Unfortunately, there are a lot of situations where a rigid thought process and consistent rules can lead you down the wrong path. I like to use cognitive flexibility as there is sometimes a need to switch from thinking based on specific rules to more broadly thinking based on a need to switch a previous thought, or belief, to some new or changing situation.
Gatlin posted on 2016-09-26 16:37:21 Reply Private Reply
#52: ConservingFreedom To: Gatlin (#51)
Thinking a jury verdict is all the information needed is always the wrong path.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-09-27 17:50:19 Reply Private Reply
#53: Gatlin To: ConservingFreedom (#52)
“Always”….you say?
Nah!
Sturgeon's Law:
From “The Claustrophile" in a 1956 issue of Galaxy
Gatlin posted on 2016-09-27 18:45:49 Reply Private Reply
#54: GrandIsland To: Deckard (#0)
I can write yella article titles too... Dick-bag.
GrandIsland posted on 2016-09-27 19:11:41 Reply Private Reply