Cell Phones Don't Look Like Guns From [HERE] More than six years ago, officers with the LAPD shot a Latino man they believed to be armed and left him a near quadriplegic. A jury Friday ordered the city of Los Angeles to pay $5.7 million to a Robert Contreras who was shot and paralyzed from the waist down by police after he fled the scene of a shooting. Although the payout, which could reach about $6.5 million if the city is ordered to pay attorney’s fees, was far less than what city officials had been told to expect, it was more than what the city needed to pay in the case: In April, the City Council rejected a proposed settlement deal that would have paid Contreras  $4.5 million.

The jury’s decision compensates the 26-year-old Robert Contreras for injuries he suffered one night in September 2005, when several officers on patrol in South L.A. responded to a report of a nearby shooting. As they arrived, witnesses pointed to a white van speeding away and said people inside the vehicle had let off a volley of gunfire while driving by. After a brief pursuit, the three men in the van jumped out and scattered.

Two officers ran after Contreras, then 19, and followed him down a dark driveway he had ducked into. Officers claimed they opened fire when he turned towards them and had a dark object in his hand. Officers unloaded on him - shooting him multiple times in the side and back. Police claim Contreras had been holding a cellphone. The officers told investigators afterward they had seen a gun in Contreras' hand as he bolted, but an extensive search of the area found no weapon. Because there was none. The jury obviously did not find the officers to be credible. 

Contreras, who was left a near-quadriplegic with some use of his arms, was convicted in 2009 for his role in the drive-by shooting and sentenced to seven years in state prison. Released on parole last year, he filed a federal lawsuit against the city, claiming the officers used excessive force and violated his civil rights.

During the February trial, U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson did not allow lawyers for the city to tell jurors several pieces of information, including the fact that Contreras had been convicted in the drive-by, that he was a known gang member and that one of the other men in the van had told investigators Contreras exited the vehicle armed with a gun, according to records obtained by The Times. Such information would have been a distraction from whether officers actions were reasonable under the circumstances known to the police at the time of the shooting as the Constitution requires.

Like jurors, at the time of the incident the police also did not know what had happened before they began an intense chase with guns drawn and fingers on the trigger. Flight by itself does not establish a guilty conscious and it is reasonable for non-white people to fear and or run from the LAPD. These officers simply chased him down and then gunned him down without having corroborated any such information. Like outlaws. Justifying the actions of the police by the results of the unlawful search or seizure is unacceptable to the Constitution. Also the jury apparently did not believe that cell phones look like guns or did not believe that Contreras had a cell phone in his hand at all (was he going to make a call during the chase?)- police probably made it up  -- they had a lot to lose -bw. 

That jury unanimously found in favor of Contreras. Faced with a second trial to determine how much money the city would have to pay to cover Contreras’ extensive medical care costs and the pain he suffered, lawyers for the city agreed with Contreras’ attorneys to a $4.5-million settlement.

However, the notion of making Contreras a multimillionaire did not sit well with several members of the City Council. An internal LAPD inquiry had cleared the officers of wrongdoing, and the proposed payout amounted essentially to an admission they had done something wrong, angry council members said. “It sends a terrible message to police officers ... not just the two officers involved, but to every officer in the LAPD, who could be faced with the same sort of situation,” Councilman Paul Krekorian said at the time.

Despite warnings from city lawyers that a jury could award more than double the settlement amount, the council rejected the deal in an 8-4 vote.

The second trial, which ran for two days this week, was largely a fight over the amount and cost of the physical therapy, medical care and general assistance Contreras will need for the rest of his life. Although medical experts put forth by Contreras’ lawyer argued he would need a round-the-clock attendant and expensive machinery to help him move, the city countered with its own experts who said far less was necessary.

Contreras, said Deputy City Atty. Craig Miller, had failed to work aggressively on his rehabilitation and would have more mobility and independence if he did so. The attempts by his attorney to portray him as a near-complete invalid were a “sympathy ploy,” Miller told jurors.

It was a risky argument to make with Contreras seated before the jury in an elaborate wheelchair, his fingers curled with paralysis. “So many things we take for granted -– to walk, to pick up a child, maybe to have a family,” said his attorney, Dale Galipo, in his closing remarks to the jury. “You need to take all of that into consideration.”

Miller and Krekorian could not be reached immediately. Galipo said that alhtough he was pleased with the jury’s decision, he had been hoping for more. “It’s still a significant amount of money,” he said. “We asked for more, but, remember, I would have settled this case for less.”

 

 

 

Officers Julio Benevides and Mario Flores reported seeing Contreras jump out of the van with a gun. They chased him, then fired on the suspect after he turned toward the officers. Contreras was shot first in the ankle and subsequently multiple times in the side and back.

After serving time in prison for participating in the 2005 drive-by shooting that resulted in the chase, Contreras filed a federal lawsuit against the city, alleging the officers violated his civil rights.

His lawyers argued the shooting of Contreras -- who was left paralyzed from the waist down, with limited use of his arms -- was "excessive and unreasonable under the circumstances" and violated his right to a reasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. A jury in February ruled unanimously against the city. [MORE] 

Contreras was shot multiple times when he allegedly turned toward officers in a dark driveway with an object in his hand they believed was a gun. The object turned out to be a cellphone and no gun was found.

Contreras was convicted in 2009 for his role in the drive-by shooting and sentenced to seven years in state prison. Released on parole last year, he filed a federal lawsuit, accusing the two officers who shot him of excessive force and violating his civil rights. Although the officers were cleared of wrongdoing by an independent board that oversees the LAPD, when a jury heard the case in February it found unanimously that the officers had been wrong to shoot Contreras.