Rodriguez v. Cal.Highway Patrol

1 2 3
en cn
a
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28

KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP IIIII
JON B. STREETER - # 101970 JON S.TIGAR-# 145566 REBECCA K. SULLIVAN - # 189299 710 Sansome Street San Francisco, California 94111-1704 Telephone: (415)391-5400

m m «• • • • • •! •!••
PP-CA-001-001

MICHELLE ALEXANDER - #177089 ALAN L. SCHLOSSER - #49957 THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 1663 Mission Street, Suite 460 San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (415)621-2493

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

CURTIS V. RODRIGUEZ, JOSE LOPEZ,

)

MacARTHUR WASHINGTON, CALIFORNIA

BRANCHES of the NAACP. and THE

CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN )

AMERICAN CITIZENS, INDIVIDUALLY )

AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS

)

SIMILARLY SITUATED,

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v.

)

)

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL,

BUREAU OF NARCOTICS ENFORCEMENT,

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

COMMISSIONER D.O. HELMICK, BUREAU

OF NARCOTICS ENFORCEMENT CHIEF

JOE DOANE, DOEDEFENDANT NARDIL.

DOE DEFENDANT WOODS,DOE

DEFENDANT WILSON and Does 4-100,

inclusive.

Case No. C-99-20895-JF/EAI
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
Demand for Jury

Defendants.

137500.01

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE N O . C-99-20895-JF/EAI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,24 25 26 27 28
237500.01

INTRODUCTION 1. This is a class action lawsuit seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief

against the California Highway Patrol ("CHP") and the Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement ("BNE")

for engaging in and condoning a continuing pattern and practice of race-based stops, detentions and

searches of motorists of color traveling on the public streets andhighways of the State of

California. The specific abuses giving rise to this action occurred on or in the area of Highway 152

in California, including, but not limited to, the area where Highway 152 intersects with Interstate

Highway 5.

2. Plaintiffs in this case, Curtis Rodriguez ("Rodriguez"), Jose Lopez ("Lopez"),

MacArthur Washington ("Washington"), California Branches of the NAACP ("NAACP"), and

California League of United Latin American Citizens ("LULAC"), represent a class of people of

color who have been or will be subjected to the humiliation of being targeted, interrogated,

detained and searched by defendants in the area of Highway 152due to the defendants' policy and

practice of what is commonly known as "racial profiling." The moment Mr. Rodriguez, Mr.

Lopez and Mr. Washington were stopped by the defendants they became victims of what the

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit called "an all too familiar set of circumstances

- an intrusive law enforcement stop and seizure of innocent persons on the basis of suspicions

rooted principally in the race of the 'suspects.'" Washington v. Lambert, 98 F.3d 1181,1182

(1996).

3. To any person of color, regardless of ethnic background, level of education, or

economic station in life, the insidious problem of racial profiling by law enforcement officers is all

too familiar. It is a continuing reminder that, despite popular notions of progress in race relations,

racial discrimination remains a day-to-day reality in our society.

4. By the complaint in this case, plaintiffs seek judicial redress for violations of their

civil rights due to racial profiling. But they also seek to confirm what everyone has a right to

expect in the United States: that people of color may use the public streets and highways, just like

anybody else, without having to suffer the indignities of racial discrimination at the hands of

government officials.

1
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. C-99-20895-JF/EAI

1

5. Plaintiffs' claims are brought pursuant to the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth

2 Amendments to theUnited States Constitution; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 andits

3 implementing regulations, 42 U.S.C. § § 1982,1983,1985 and 1986; Article 1, Section 7(a)of the

4 California Constitution; California Civil Code §52.1; California Government Code §§11135 and

5 11139; and the California Common Law.

6

JURISDICTION

7

6. This court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 and

8 2201. TheCourt has pendent jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims

9 alleged in this Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Declaratory relief is authorized under 28

10 U.S.C. §§2201 and 2202.

11

7. All administrative remedies have been exhausted. In compliance with California

12 Government Code § 910 et seq., Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Lopez, and Mr. Washington have filed

13 administrative claims for damages under the California Tort Claims Actwith the California State

14 Board of Control, which has declined to exercise jurisdiction over these actions.

15

8. A substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims alleged in this Complaint

16 arose in the County of Santa Clara, California. Venue therefore lies in the United States District

17 Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 84(a), 28

18 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and Civil Local Rule 3-2(d).

19

PARTIES

20

9. Plaintiff Curtis V. Rodriguez is, and at all relevant times herein mentioned was, a

21 citizen of the State of California and a resident of the County of Santa Clara. Mr. Rodriguez isof

22 Latino descent and,by physical appearance, is a person of color.

23

10. Plaintiff Jose Lopez is, and at all relevant times herein mentioned was, a citizen of

'24 the State of California and a resident of the County of Los Angeles. Mr. Lopez is of Latino decent

25 and, by physical appearance, is a person of color.

26

11. Plaintiff MacArthur Washington is, and at all relevant times herein mentioned was,

27 a citizen of the State of California and resident of the County of Merced. Mr. Washington is

28 African-American and,by physical appearance, a person of color.

237500.01

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE N O . C-99-20895-JF EAI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 '24 25 26 27 28
137500.01

12. Plaintiff California Branches of the NAACP (the California NAACP) is a non-profit membership organization dedicated to eradicating race-based discrimination throughout California and to securing equal protection of the laws for all persons. Upon information and belief, individual members of the California NAACP regularly travel on the Highways of California, including Highway 152 and Interstate 5, and at various times have been stopped and detained by members of the CHPand/or BNE on the basis of their race. The California NAACP is representative of the class of minority motorists who have been or are being subjected to racebased discrimination by the CHPand/or BNE. TheCalifornia NAACP participates as a plaintiff only for the purpose of securing declaratory and injunctive relief.
13. Plaintiff California League of United Latin American Citizens ("LULAC") is a nonprofit membership organization dedicated to eradicating race-based discrimination throughout California and to securing equal protection of the laws for all persons. Upon information and belief, individual members of the LULAC regularly travel on the Highways of California, including Highway 152 and Interstate 5, and at various times have been stopped and detained by members of the CHP and/or BNE on the basis of their race. The California LULAC is representative of the class of minority motorists being subjected to race-based discrimination by the CHP and/or BNE. LULAC participates as a plaintiff only for the purpose of securing declaratory and injunctive relief.
14. Defendant California Highway Patrol, headquartered in Sacramento, California is a division of the State of California in charge of patrolling California State highways. Upon information and belief, the CHPreceives federal funds through federal grants from the United States Department of Justice or another federal agency. As such, the CHP is legally required to conduct its activities in a racially non-discriminatory manner.
15. Upon information and belief, Doe defendant Officer Nardil, sued here in both his individual and official capacities, is a resident of California who is employed by the CHP. All actions taken by Officer Nardil while working as an officer of the CHPwere taken under color of state law. In due course, this complaint will be amended to allege the full and correct name of Doe defendant Officer Nardil once that information has been ascertained.
3
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. C-99-20895-JF/EAI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ' 24 25 26 27 28
237500.01

16. Upon information and belief, Doe defendant Officer Wilson, sued here in both his individual and official capacities, is a resident of California who is employed by the CHP. All actions taken by Officer Wilson while working as an officer of the CHPwere taken under color of state law. In due course, this complaint will be amended to allege the full and correct name of Doe defendant Officer Wilson once that information has been ascertained.
17. Upon information and belief, Doe defendant Officer Woods, sued here in both his individual and official capacities, is a resident of California who is employed by the BNE. All actions taken by Officer Woods while working as an officer of the BNEwere taken under color of state law. In due course, this complaint will be amended to allege the full and correct name of Doe defendant Officer Woods once that information has been ascertained.
18. Upon information and belief, defendant D.O Helmick is Commissioner of the CHP and a resident of California. Upon information and belief, defendant Commissioner Helmick directly or indirectly participated in the authorization, planning and supervision of the actions of the individual CHP officers involved in this case, including Doe defendant Nardil. Upon information and belief, defendant Commissioner Helmick failed adequately to train CHP personnel and to promulgate appropriate policies to prevent race-based vehicular stops, and has established, implemented and enforced illegal and unconstitutional policies and practices that have caused plaintiffs' injuries.
19. Defendant Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement ("BNE") is a division of the State of California Attorney General's office, and, upon information and belief, receives federal funds through federal grants from the Department of Justice or another federal agency. As such, the BNE is legally required to conduct its activities in a racially non-discriminatory manner.
20. Upon information and belief, defendant Joe Doane is Bureau Chief of BNE and a resident of California. Upon information and belief, defendant Chief Doane directly or indirectly participated in the authorization, planning and supervision of the actions of the individual BNE officers involved in this case. Upon information and belief, Chief Doane failed adequately to train BNE personnel and to promulgate appropriate policies to prevent race-based vehicular stops, and has established, implemented and enforced illegal and unconstitutional policies and practices that
4
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE N O . C-99-20895-JF. E.-U

1 have caused plaintiffs' injuries.

2

21. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Doedefendants 1through 50 are all officers

3 of the CHPor BNEand were at all relevant times acting in the course and scope of their

4 employment and acting under color of law. Upon information and belief, each of Doe defendants 1

5 through 50 participated in some way in the stop of plaintiffs and others on the basis on race,

6 ethnicity, or national origin. Defendants 1 though 50 are all sued in their individual and official

7 capacities. The true names of these defendants are unknown to plaintiffs. In due course, plaintiffs

8 will amend this complaint to identify these defendants' true names when they have been

9 ascertained.

10

22. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Doedefendants 51 through 100 are officials

11 and/or supervisory officers of the CHPand/or BNE and were at all relevant times acting inthe

12 course and scope of their employment. Upon information and belief, each of Doe defendants 51

13 through 100directly or indirectly participated in the authorization, planning and supervision ofthe

14 actions of the individual CHP and/or BNE officers involved in this case. Upon information and

15 belief, one or more of these defendants failed adequately to train CHP personnel and to promulgate

16 appropriate policies to prevent race-based vehicular stops, and all of them have established,

17 implemented and enforced illegal and unconstitutional policies and practices that have caused

18 plaintiffs' injuries. Does 51 through 100 are sued in their individual and official capacities. The

19 true names of these defendants are unknown to plaintiffs; plaintiffs will amend this complaint to

20 identify these defendants' true names when they have been ascertained.

21

23. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times each defendant was the agent

22 and/or employee of each of the remaining defendants, and in doing the things herein alleged was

23 acting within the course and scope of his or her employment and under color of law. Each ofthe

' 24 defendants caused, and is responsible for, the unlawful conduct described herein. Each defendant

25 is responsible for plaintiffs' injuries by personally participating in the unlawful conduct; acting

26 jointly and in concert with others who did so; authorizing, acquiescing or failing to take action to

27 prevent the unlawful conduct; promulgating policies and procedures pursuant to which the

28
237500.01

unlawful conduct occurred; failing and refusing, with deliberate indifference, to implement and 5
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE N O . C-99-20895-JF/EAI

1 maintain adequate training and supervision; and/or by ratifying the unlawful conduct.

2

24. All of the defendants, and each of them, are sued both in their individual and official

3 capacities.

4

FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS ACTION

5

Operation Pipeline and Other California Drug Interdiction Programs

6

25. TheCHPand BNEhave long relied upon race and ethnicity in conducting stops,

7 detentions, interrogations, and searches of motorists. They have engaged in an unabated,

8 continuing pattern and practice of discrimination.

9

26. In recent years, the law enforcement practice of targeting motorists on the basis of

10 race or ethnicity has increased dramatically nationwide, largely due to federally funded drug

11 interdiction programs operated by state and local law enforcement agencies.

12

27. Today, the defendants, like many law enforcement agencies across the country,

13 participate in a federally funded drug interdiction program sponsored by the United States Drug

14 Enforcement Agency ("DEA") known as Operation Pipeline. The stated purpose and mission of

15 Operation Pipeline is to remove drugs and weapons from the nation's highways. The DEA, asthe

16 sponsoring agency, provides training and instructors for state and local law enforcement agencies,

17 teaching them how to identify highway travelers as potential drug couriers based on a profile. In

18 addition, plaintiffs believe that the CHP is allowing and encouraging Operation Pipeline-like stops

19 throughout California, such that these abuses are not limited to only those officers technically

20 participating the Operation Pipeline program.

21

28. Operation Pipeline is a roving program of discrimination that, depending on the area

22 in which it is implemented and has its effects, can and does injure motorists of color throughout the

23 state of California. Pipeline and Pipeline-like programs encourage officers to rely upon minor

' 24 traffic violations that can be used as an excuse or "pretext" to stop motorists that somehow seem

25 "suspicious." Once a stop has been made, officers are trained to seek consent to search - which

26 most unwary motorists readily give - so that there is no need to point to any probable cause should

27 questions about the legality of the search arise later.

28
237500.01

29. When consent is refused, troopers often detain the motorist until a canine unit 6
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. C-99-20895-JF/EAI

1 performs a sniff test around the exterior of the vehicle. If the dog alerts to something, the detention

2 continues, as the officer will then use the drug dog's reaction as probable cause. If no canine unit

3 is used, troopers sometimes simply ignore motorists when they refuse consent to search, knowing

4 that if drugs are found a court will be unlikely to conclude that a drug courier is more credible than

5 a CHP officer.

6

30. In addition, CHPofficers and supervisors know that, if no drugs are found,

7 motorists are unlikely to complain about their illegal tactics. Studies indicate that most motorists do

8 not even know they have the right to refuse consent to search. Those who do know their rights

9 have been violated are often so relieved that their frightening encounter with police has ended

10 without violence or arrest that they simply go on their way without complaint. Some motorists

11 believe that complaining to law enforcement agencies about their illegal and discriminatory

12 practices is futile. Others fear retaliation.

13

31. The CHP first became involved in Operation Pipeline in the late 1980's. but has

14 since become one of the agencies most actively involved in the program, conducting joint

15 operations with local law enforcement agencies and the BNE. Upon information and belief, the

16 CHPnowhas Pipeline teams running formal operations on all of California's major highways,

17 including Highway 152 and Interstate Highway 5, and has more than 40 canine units at its disposal.

18

32. A report regarding Operation Pipeline and the CHP's racial profiling practices was

19 issued by the Joint Legislative Task Force on Government Oversight on September 29, 1999.The

20 report, which was based on a review of thousands of CHP records and testimony from numerous

21 CHPofficers and officials, concluded that Operation Pipeline discriminates against motorists of

22 color in general, and Latino motorists in particular.

23

33. According to the report, the goal of Operation Pipeline is to use "intensified

24 enforcement" of traffic laws to generate a very high volume of traffic stops to screen for drug

25 couriers. Pipeline officers are not expected to write many traffic tickets and are often discouraged

26 from doing so. Instead, troopers are trained to stop and search thousands of motorists for

27 insignificant vehicle code infractions, the vast majority of which result in no more than a verbal

28 warning.

137500.01

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. C-99-20895-JF/EAI

1

34. As a matter of policy, officers are encouraged to use vehicle code violations such as

2 weaving, improper lane changes, bumed out license plate lights, tinted windows, following too

3 closely or seat belt violations, as excuses to stop drivers and attempt to search their cars for drugs.

4 Once the officers have an excuse for the stop, they are trained to begin questioning and searching

5 the occupants of the vehicle.

6

35. TheTask Force report shows that stops conducted with the goal of drug interdiction

1 frequently result in travelers spending lengthy periods of time standing on the side of the road

8 while being interrogated, fielding repeated questions about their family members, their

9 occupations, their marital status, their immigration status, their criminal histories and their

10 recreational use of drugs or alcohol. Many of these motorists have their pulses taken to detect

11 signs of nervousness, a trait which is then cited as grounds for requesting "consent" to search their

12 car. Other motorists are subjected to field sobriety tests even though there is no evidence that the

13 motorist was under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance.

14

36. CHPpolicy permits officers to detain a motorist during any traffic stop forthe

15 purpose of conducting a search. Pursuant to this policy, CHP officers routinely detain motorists for

16 the purpose of searching their vehicles, even though the officers have no probable cause, or even

17 reasonable suspicion, that the motorists are carrying illegal drugs or engaged in any criminal

18 activity. These searches involve significant intrusion, humiliation, embarrassment and great

19 inconvenience for thousands of innocent motorists, but the practice is condoned and encouraged by

20 CHP supervisors and management.

21

37. The practice of stopping and searching innocent motorists would be alarming no

22 matter who was subjected to this kind of treatment by government officials. The reality, however,

23 is that motorists of color are targeted and subjected to these practices at grossly disproportionate

'24 rates. CHPtroopers, consistent with their Operation Pipeline training, are determining who to stop,

25 detain, interrogate and/or search in a racially discriminatory manner.

26

38. As set forth in the Task Force report, the CHP's own figures show that between

27 80% to 90% of all motorists arrested by Pipeline units since 1997 have been members of minority

28
£37500.01

groups, and only 10% have been white. This data strongly suggests that motorists are targeted, 8
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-99-20895-JF/EAI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 '24 25 26 27 28
137S0O.0I

stopped and searched on the basis of race by the CHP. Studies of Operation Pipeline programs in other states reveal that, contrary to popular perception, people of color are not more likely than whites to be carrying drugs or other contraband in their cars. People of color are arrested at grossly disproportionate rates because they are targeted and searched at grossly disproportionate rates, not because they are more likely to be guilty of carrying drugs in the vehicles. Ironically, the arrest statistics which are the product of racial profiling are often used by law enforcement to justify the continued targeting of motorists of color. TheNewJersey Attorney General dubbed this phenomenon: "theperverse illogic of racial profiling."
39. The discriminatory impact of the CHP's drug interdiction efforts on minority motorists cannot bejustified by law enforcement necessity. Operation Pipeline and Pipeline-like tactics have proven to be extremely costly and largely ineffective, taking a tremendous toll on thousands of innocent motorists every year. According to the CHP's owndata, nine out often vehicle searches turn up nothing incriminating. Statistical analyses performed in other states show that it is common for between 70%and 95% of all Pipeline stops to produce no arrests or contraband seizures. As a result, thousands of innocent motorists are stopped, searched and treated like criminals by the defendants every year based on nothing more than a police officer's mistaken hunch.
40. The CHP's participation in Operation Pipeline, and the proliferation of Pipeline-like training, has occurred with the strong support of CHP management. The Task Force report found that individual officers involved in these operations and training programs have been carrying out what they perceive to be the policy of the CHP, the BNE, the Department of Justice, and the Administration of the State of California in targeting drivers through profiling. In fact, the officers involved in these operations have been repeatedly commended by their supervisors for the jobs they are doing, and encouraged to continue with the Operation Pipeline stops despite the fact that the vast majority of the stops are unsuccessful and involve motorists of color. Officers are under considerable pressure by their supervisors to pull over as many motorists as possible andto conduct as many searches as possible, and therefore spend thousands of hours conducting
unwarranted and intimidating stops of innocent motorists, most of whom are people of color. 9
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE N O . C-99-20895-JF/EAI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 >24 25 26 27 28
I37SOO.OI

Because these drug interdiction programs can occasionally find drugs and cash, CHPand BNE supervisors and management have continued to encourage Operation Pipeline tactics, despite evidence showing that minority drivers arebeing targeted and subjected to unwarranted stops, searches, detention and interrogation.
41. Plaintiffs allege that CHPand BNEsupervisors have been aware that troopers are engaging in racial profiling, yet have failed and refused to stop it, thereby showing deliberate indifference to the rights of motorists of color. The supervisory defendants have failed to take effective action to prevent continuation of the egregious pattern of discrimination against motorists of color, despite their rhetoric to the contrary. Due to the supervisory defendants' inaction, plaintiffs, and the class they seek to represent, have suffered and continue to suffer systematic violations of their civil rights.
42. The racially discriminatory impact of Operation Pipeline has been challenged in numerous cases nationwide. NewJersey judges have dismissed more than 600 criminal cases in recent years because of concerns over racial stereotyping by officers in the Operation Pipeline program; the Maryland State Police has settled litigation challenging racial profiling in connection with their drug interdiction efforts; and a federal judge ruled that the Sheriffs Department in Eagle County, Colorado was making "racist assumptions" about drivers who were being pulled over and searched for drugs in connection with their Pipeline program.
43. Defendants have turned a deaf ear to the racially imbalanced result of these drug interdiction programs, the complaints of victims, and the trauma these baseless stops and searches have on motorists of color in California. What happened to the plaintiffs, as described below, is not unusual. Their stories are consistent with the defendants' policy, pattern and practice of discriminating on the basis of race when determining whom to target, stop, interrogate, detain and/or search in their drug interdiction efforts. The clear discriminatory effect of these practices, and the discriminatory purpose hidden behind the defendants' practice and policy of willful ignorance, is immoral and illegal. These practices must be stopped.
10
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. C-99-20895-JF/EAI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
137500.01

The Illegal Traffic Stops and Searches In This Case Curtis Rodriguez
44. OnJune 6, 1998, the CHP acting in concert with agents from the California Department of Justice andBNEcarried out a "special narcotics interdiction" operation in the Pacheco Pass area of State Highway 152,south of San Jose. Mr.Rodriguez, accompanied by his associate Arturo Hernandez, happened to drive through the stretch of highway where this operation was taking place on that day. Mr. Rodriguez was at the wheel of his burgundy-colored 1995 Mazda Millenia, andMr.Hernandez was in thepassenger seat. Mr.Rodriguez is an attorney.
45. Mr. Rodriguez and Mr. Hernandez were travelling from San Jose to Merced to take some photographs as part of an investigation of an ongoing case. While driving eastbound on Highway 152, they noticed two traffic stops being executed by the CHP, and both stops were of Latinos. One of the stops involved two CHP vehicles. On the way back from Merced, Mr. Rodriguez and Mr. Hernandez were driving westbound on Highway 152,again in the Pacheco Pass area. They both noticed five traffic stops and at least ten CHP and BNE vehicles within a ten-mile stretch of highway. All of the detained drivers were of Latinos, and most or all of the drivers were standing outside of their cars by the side of the road. Distressed by what they were witnessing, Mr. Rodriguez and Mr. Hernandez decided to document these race-based police stops to prove to others what they had seen. Mr. Hernandez took photographs of the fourth and fifth stops of Latino drivers, while Mr. Rodriguez concentrated on obeying the speed limit and all traffic laws in order to avoid giving the police any excuse to pull them over. Nonetheless, the officers stopped Mr. Rodriguez and searched his vehicle without consent or probable cause.
46. The officer who made the stop, Officer Nardil, told Mr. Rodriguez that he had been stopped because he had his lights on and that he had crossed the line of the lane he was driving in. Both reasons were false and pretextual. Drivers in the area are advised to have their lights on, and Mr. Rodriguez had taken great care to stay perfectly within the middle of his lane in order to avoid accusations of an infraction. When Mr. Rodriguez' counsel inquired of the CHP about the stop as part of the investigation of this lawsuit, the CHPchanged even this pretextual basis for the stop; the official version now is that Mr. Rodriguez, while engaged in "random driving," failed to comply
n
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. C-99-20895-JF/EAI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 » 24 25 26 27 28
137500.01

with the "requirement that motorists drive with illuminated headlights." 47. After stopping Mr. Rodriguez, Officer Nardil asked whether Mr. Rodriguez would
consent to a search of the vehicle. Mr. Rodriguez refused. At that point, Officer Nardil stated - in a monotone voice, with a flat affect - that he was in fear for his personal safety, and that he was going to search the car for weapons. He then undertook a search that turned up nothing but the camera that Mr. Hernandez had used to photograph the illegal stops. After a detention that lasted the better part of half an hour, Mr. Rodriguez was released without a ticket or citation. His only "crime," it turned out, was being a Latino male.
48. Mr. Rodriguez travels on Highway 152 and Interstate Highway 5 for work-related reasons approximately once a month. Mr. Rodriguez has no intention of changing his job or his residence, and therefore has a reasonable expectation that he will travel these highways in the future. Therefore, based on his stop, his observations of other stops, and his need to use the highways for business and personal reasons, and especially in light of the CHP drug interdiction program's policy and practice as described above, Mr. Rodriguez has a valid and reasonable fear that he will be stopped by the CHP again in the future solely on the basis of his race.
Jose Lopez 49. On April 6, 1999, Jose Lopez, a Latino, was traveling with Stephanie Gevorkian in
their 1989 Ford Aerostar mini van north on Interstate Highway 5. Mr. Lopez is a service technician and repairman for Sears. Ms. Gevorkian, who is white, is Mr. Lopez' companion and the mother of his son. Although they are not formally married, Mr. Lopez and Ms. Gevorkian call each other "husband" and "wife." Mr. Lopez and Ms. Gevorkian were traveling from their home in El Monte, California to Ms. Gevorkian's parents' home in Fremont, California. Their son had been visiting his grandparents in Fremont, and his baptism was to take place the next day in Fremont. Mr. Lopez and Ms. Gevorkian were driving to pick up their son, spend time with her family, and celebrate their son's baptism in Fremont before returning home, with their son, to El Monte.
50. Near the intersection of Highway 152 and Interstate 5, Mr. Lopez and Ms. Gevorkian noticed a CHP vehicle traveling south on Interstate 5. They looked at the officers. As they looked at the officers, the CHP vehicle made a U-tum across the median and merged into
12
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
C\SF. No. C-99-20895-JF/EAI

1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 > 24 25 26 27 28
237500.01

the northbound lane. Theofficers immediately pulled up alongside Mr. Lopez' minivan. Mr. Lopez kept the minivan in cruise control at the speed limit. The officers looked inside the van, and stared closely at Mr. Lopez's and Ms. Gevorkian's faces. After following Mr. Lopez alongside and behind the van for a few minutes the CHPofficers activated the emergency lights and pulled their
» vehicle over.
51. Theofficers told Mr. Lopez and Ms.Gevorkian that they hadbeen stopped because a small crystal was hanging from the rearview mirror. Ms.Gevorkian immediately apologized, took the crystal down and put it in the glove compartment. Instead of ticketing Mr. Lopez or allowing the couple to go on their way, however, the officers ordered Mr. Lopez out of the car. Mr. Lopez was taken back to the patrol car by one of the officers, while the other officer stood with Ms. Gevorkian on the passenger side of the minivan.
52. The officers then interrogated Mr. Lopez and Ms. Gevorkian separately for approximately 30 minutes. Theofficer with Ms.Gevorkian repeated called her by the wrong name. He asked her many times why there were baby clothes but no baby in the car, and what she and Mr. Lopez did for a living. Several times he asked "'what are you doing with that man?" His tone was angry and accusing, and she understood him to be asking why she was with a Latino. He asked her repeatedly if she was nervous, and she replied that she was. He then asked her why, telling her that she wouldn't be if she hadn't done anything wrong. He asked to search the car. Ms.Gevorkian reluctantly gave her consent, fearing the officers' anger if she did not. The search turned up nothing.
53. Meanwhile, the other officer repeatedly asked Mr. Lopez where he was bom, where he was going, what he did for a living, how he got his driver's license, and what he was doing with Ms.Gevorkian. He focused in particular on Mr. Lopez' drivers' license, which Mr. Lopez assumed was because the officer thought that Mr. Lopez was not a legal resident of this country. After asking the same questions over and over again, the officers spoke together for a few minutes, ordering Mr. Lopez to continue standing on the side of the highway by the patrol car. They then returned to interrogate Ms.Gevorkian and Mr. Lopez separately, again asking the same questions they had previously asked. After approximately five to ten more minutes of questioning the
FIRST AMEND1E3D COMPLAINT
CASE N O . C-99-20895-JF/EAI

1 officers told Mr. Lopez he could go. No citations were issued and no arrests were made.

2

54. Ms. Gevorkian and Mr. Lopez were detained and searched without any legal basis,

3 and have been shamed and demeaned by being forced to endure the humiliating questions and

4 treatment from the officers who stopped them. After the stop, Ms.Gevorkian cried and expressed

5 her fear that she would not be able to visit her parents because she and Mr. Lopez cannot travel on

6 Interstate 5 without being stopped. Mr. Lopez is afraid to put anything on his car that would

7 identify him as a Mexican-American because he believes he will be stopped again, especially since

8 this is not the first time Mr. Lopez has been stopped by a CHP officer without any basis. Because

9 they have family and friends in Northern California, but live in Southern California, Mr. Lopez and

10 Ms.Gevorkian have been, and will in the future, travel on Interstate 5 near Highway 152at least

11 once a month. However, this normal expectation of family visits has been compromised by their

12 stop, and their real and legitimate fear of future stops. In light of this unjustified stop and the

13 policy and practice of CHP drug interdiction programs as set forth above, Mr. Lopez and Ms.

14 Gevorkian have a reasonable belief and fear that they will be stopped again in the future.

15 MacArthur Washington

16

55. MacArthur Washington is a California resident of African-American descent. On

17 May 26, 1999, at approximately 2:00 a.m., Mr. Washington was driving near Highway 152 in Los

18 Banos, California. He was in the vicinity of the intersection of Highway 152 and Interstate 5. Mr.

19 Washington was on his way to pick up a co-worker and go to work. Mr. Washington lives inan

20 agricultural area, and has worked for about four years for a firm called Smith Hay. As part ofhis

21 job,Mr.Washington assists with the cutting, raking and baling of hay, a task that must be

22 performed early in the morning. On the date and at the time in question, Mr. Washington was

23 going to pick up Bobby Smith, another employee of Smith Hay, to begin raking and baling. Mr.

• 24 Washington was driving a Smith Hay company truck, a late model Sierra 4-wheel drive pick up.

25

56. When Mr. Washington arrived at Bobby Smith's residence. Mr. Smith was not

26 waiting outside. Mr. Washington did not knock or call out, because he wanted to avoid waking an

27 elderly member of Mr. Smith's family who lived in the same house. Instead, after waiting for a

28
237500.01

few minutes, Mr. Washington drove to a pay phone at a nearby Circle K. market to call Ron Smith, 14
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE N O . C-99-20895-JF/EAI

1 Smith Hay's owner and Bobby Smith's uncle, and ask what to do. Ron Smith agreed to meet

2 Mr. Washington at Bobby Smith's house. As Mr. Washington drove out of the Circle K parking

3 lot, he saw a CHP vehicle parked in the oncoming lane with its lights off. The car was facing the

4 front of Mr. Washington's car. When he passed the CHP vehicle, the officers made a U-turn,

5 activated their lights and pulled Mr. Washington over. Mr. Washington was informed that he had

6 been pulled over because the light illuminating his rear license plate was broken.

7

57. There was one CHP officer (Doe Defendant Officer Wilson) and one BNE officer

8 (Doe Defendant Officer Woods) in the CHP vehicle. The officers asked for his license, registration

9 and insurance. They looked inside the truck. They then asked him to get out of the car, and they

10 searched the trunk. At no time did they seek Mr. Washington's consent. The search turned up

11 nothing.

12

58. Although the search had turned up nothing, and although Mr. Washington had not

13 committed any traffic violation, the officers did not allow Mr. Washington to leave. Instead, the

14 BNE officer began to administer field sobriety tests to Mr. Washington. At about this same time,

15 Ron Smith, the owner of Smith Hay and Mr. Washington's boss, came by. The CHP officer, Doe

16 Defendant Officer Wilson, informed Ron Smith that they believed Mr. Washington was driving

17 under the influence. Smith explained that there was no basis for the officers' belief, that he knew

18 Mr. Washington very well, that he was Mr. Washington's AA sponsor, and that Mr. Washington

19 had been sober for over seven years and was on his way to pick up someone for work.

20 Nevertheless, the CHP officers persisted in their search and examination of Mr. Washington.

21

59. Notwithstanding the lack of probable cause to believe that any crime had been

22 committed, the officers then took Mr. Washington to the CHP office on Highway 152 and towed

23 the Smith Hay truck. At the CHP office, Doe Defendant Officer Woods and Doe Defendant

'24 Officer Wilson performed the same field sobriety tests again, and checked his pulse many more

25 times. The officers ordered him to blow into a breathalyzer. When the breathalyzer came back

26 zero, the officer continued to insist that Mr. Washington must be intoxicated or under the influence

27 of an illegal substance. Mr. Washington agreed to submit to a blood test, and was taken to the

28
237500.0!

Merced County Satellite Jail in Los Banos. He was kept there until approximately 5:30 that
15
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. C-99-20895-JF/E.AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22
23 ' 24 25 26 27 28
J37500.0I

morning. 60. Although Mr. Washington was arrested that night for violating Health & Safety
Code § 11550(under the influence of a controlled substance) and Vehicle Code § 23152(a) (driving under the influence), he has never been charged. Mr. Washington has since learned that the blood test taken that night came out negative, proving that Mr. Washington had not been under the influence of any controlled substance or alcohol.
61. Mr. Washington was pulled over because of his race. He was not driving erratically, and had not committed any traffic violations. The rear license plate light was not even broken. The sole "offense" Mr. Washington committed was driving while black at two o'clock in the morning.
62. Mr. Washington has been very upset since his unjustified stop. As a sober and religious man, it is difficult for him to accept that he was stopped, subjected to unwarranted search and examination, andjailed on the basis of his race.
63. Mr. Washington still works for Smith Hay, and still lives near Los Banos, California. He must continue driving on and around Highway 152 on a daily basis, yet his normal expectation to be free from unwarranted stops has been compromised by his real and legitimate fear that he will be stopped and searched without cause in the future. Based on his experience and the policy and practice of the CHP drug interdiction programs as described above, Mr. Washington has a reasonable and justified fear that he will again be subject to race based traffic stops and searches at the hands of the CHP and/or BNE when driving on or around Highway 152 in the future.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 64. For the purposes of all relief sought in this case, plaintiffs Rodriguez, Lopez and Washington bring this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of themselves and all others persons similarly situated. Each of these individual class representatives is a person of color who has been stopped, detained, interrogated and searched by CHP and/or BNE officers while travelling on or in the area of Highway 152. The class which plaintiffs seek to represent consists of all people of color who,since June 1998,have been or will be stopped,
16
FIRST AMENDED CO.MPI.AI.NT
CASE NO. C-99-20895-JF/EAI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 >24 25 26 27 28
Z37soo.oi

detained, interrogated and/or searched on Highway 152 or on any road or highway near 152 including, but notlimited to, Interstate Highway 5,bytheCHP orthe BNE. These class members arevictims of the racially motivated andillegal pattern and practice of discrimination in the enforcement of traffic laws by theCHP and BNE.
65. The class of persons defined in paragraph 64is sonumerous that joinder ofall members in one action is impracticable.
66. There are questions of law andfact common to allmembers of the class, because all class members have been, or will be, adversely affected bythe challenged actions ofthe defendants. Common questions of fact andlawinclude, butarenotlimited to: whether CHP and BNE officers target, stop, detain and/or search individual drivers in a racially discriminatory manner; andwhether CHP andBNE officers areknowingly trained to employ methods that result in racial profiling andhave an unjustified disparate impact on putative class members in violation of federal andstate civil rights laws.
67. The claims of the representative plaintiffs aretypical of the class as a whole who travel onor around Highway 152andhave been stopped, detained and/or searched by the defendants. The experiences of the plaintiffs at thehands of the defendants resulted from the defendants' policy and practice of discriminating on thebasis of race andethnicity, making their claims typical of those held by theclass they seek to represent.
68. Plaintiffs canandwill fairly andadequately protect theinterests of the members of theclass. Plaintiffs will be adequate representatives of the class in that all of the relevant questions of fact andlawapplicable to theclass also apply to them.
69. Plaintiffs have retained counsel who arefamiliar with theapplicable law and experienced in class action litigation, as well as litigation involving criminal lawandcivil rights. Counsel forplaintiffs have theresources necessary to pursue this litigation.
70. This action is properly maintained as a class action. The questions of law and fact common to themembers of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, anda class action is superior to other available methods forthe fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Plaintiffs know of no difficulty to be encountered in the
17
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. C-99-20895-JF/EAI

I 2 3
4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
137500.01

management of this action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action. 71. Theprosecution of separate actions by individual class members would create a risk
of inconsistent and varying adjudication concerning the subject of this action, and such adjudication could establish incompatible standards of conduct for defendants under the laws

alleged herein.

REQUISITES FOR RELIEF 72. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendants described above, plaintiffs have been denied their constitutional and statutory rights as stated below and has suffered and continues to suffer mental and emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, discomfort, anxiety and pain.

73. Defendants' acts were willful, wanton, malicious, oppressive and done with conscious disregard and deliberate indifference for plaintiffs' rights. Therefore, defendants' actions justify an award to plaintiffs of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

74. Defendants' policies, practices, conduct and acts alleged herein have resulted and will continue to result in irreparable injury to plaintiffs, including but not limited to further violations of their statutory and constitutional rights. Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to address the wrongs described herein. Plaintiffs therefore seek injunctive relief restraining defendants from continuing to engage in and enforce the unconstitutional and illegal policies, practices, conduct and acts described herein.

75. Defendants acted with discriminatory intent in violation of plaintiffs' legal and constitutional rights, and have directly and proximately caused plaintiffs' humiliation, mental pain and suffering. As a direct, legal, and proximate result of defendants' violations of plaintiffs' statutory, constitutional and common law rights, plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount which is not yet known. Plaintiffs will seek leave of Court to amend this complaint when ascertained, or will amend to conform to proof at time of trial.

76. At all times herein mentioned, defendants had an obligation to comply with federal

and state laws regarding racial discrimination. Defendants failed to meet these obligations with

respect to plaintiffs.

IS
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE N O . C-99-20895-JF/EAI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,24 25 26 27 28
137500.01

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Race Discrimination in Federally Funded Programs Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 C.F.R. §§101 etseq.
(Against Defendants CHPand BNE)
77. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege paragraphs 1-76 of this Complaint. 78. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000d, provides:
[N]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. 79. Federal regulations implementing Title VI prohibit federally funded programs or activities from having a racially discriminatory impact or effect. Theregulations provide that no program receiving financial assistance through the U.S. Department of Justice shall:
Utilize criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin, or have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program as respects individuals of a particular race, color, or national origin. 80. Defendants CHP and BNE receive federal financial assistance from the United States Department of Justice, and thus is bound to abide by the terms of Title VI andits implementing regulations, including 28 C.F.R. §42.101 et seq. 81. Eleventh Amendment immunity of the State of California, the CHP and BNE was abrogated by Congress in its enactment of Title VI. 42 U.S.C. §2000d-7. 82. The drug interdiction methods employed by the CHP and/or BNE discriminate against motorists of color traveling through California, including plaintiffs, as described herein. 83. Defendants CHPand BNE's violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000d and its implementing regulations have caused and will continue to cause plaintiffs to suffer tremendous harm and public humiliation in that they have been and will continue to be subjected to CHPand/or BNE's practice of race-based discrimination without judicial intervention.
19
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
CVSE No. C-99-20895-JF/EAI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
137500.01

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Violation ofthe Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Against all defendants intheir individual and official capacities except CHP and BNE) 84. Plaintiffs incorporate byreference and reallege paragraphs 1-83 ofthis Complaint. 85. Defendants, acting under color oflaw and inconcert with one another, have engaged in a continuing pattern and practice of intentional race discrimination in drug interdiction efforts carried out on, and inthe area of, Highway 152. Insodoing, defendants have caused plaintiffs, and the class they seek torepresent, to suffer deprivation oftheir fundamental rights to liberty and to be free from unlawful searches, detentions, and seizures onaccount oftheir race and/or national origin. These actions violated plaintiffs' rights toequal protection ofthe laws, in violation ofthe Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution ofthe United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 86. Defendants acting under color of law, institute, authorize, tolerate, ratify, permit and acquiesce in policies, practices and customs ofdetention, searches and seizures which involve intentional race discrimination in the provision of law enforcement services. 87. The defendants' acts were done inknowing violation ofplaintiffs' legal and constitutional rights, and have directly and proximately caused plaintiffs' humiliation, mental pain, and suffering.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Violation ofthe Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
42 U.S.C. Section 1983. (Against alldefendants in their official and individual capacities except CHP and BNE)
88. Plaintiffs incorporate byreference and reallege paragraphs I- 87 of this Complaint. 89. Defendants, acting under color of law and inconcert with one another, have violated plaintiffs' rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Defendants have subjected plaintiffs, and the class they seek to represent, to lengthy detentions, interrogations and searches, without probable cause orreasonable suspicion tobelieve that any crime had been committed or that plaintiffs were carrying drugs ofany kind, in violation ofthe Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, and giving rise to plaintiffs claims pursuant to the Fourteenth
20
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE N O . C-99-20895-JF/EAI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 >24 25 26 27 28
237S0O.0I

Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 90. Defendants, acting under color of law, institute, authorize, tolerate, ratify permit and
acquiesce in policies, practices and customs of detentions, interrogations, searches and seizures without probable cause or reasonable, articulable suspicion of crime, in their provision of law enforcement services.
91. Defendants' acts were done in knowing violation of plaintiffs' legal and constitutional rights, without good faith, and have directly and proximately caused plaintiffs' humiliation, mental pain and suffering.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the Commerce Clause, Article IV, and Fourteenth Amendment
to the United States Constitution 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (Against all defendants in their individual and official capacities except the CHP and the BNE)
92. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege paragraphs 1-91 of this Complaint. 93. Defendants, acting under color of law and in concert with one another, have caused plaintiffs to be penalized and deterred in the exercise of their fundamental right to interstate travel and migration on account of his race and/or ethnicity and/or national origin. These actions violated plaintiffs' right to travel, in violation of the Commerce Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clauses of Article IV and the Fourteenth Amendment. 94. Defendants, acting under color of law, institute, authorize, ratify, permit and acquiesce in policies, practices and customs of detention, searches and seizures which violate plaintiffs' fundamental right to interstate travel.
95. Defendants' acts were done in known violation of plaintiffs' legal and constitutional rights, without good faith, and have directly and proximately caused plaintiffs' humiliation, mental pain and suffering.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (Against all defendants in their individual and official capacities except the CHP and the BNE) 96. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege paragraphs 1-95 of this Complaint. 97. Defendants, acting under color of law and in concert with one another, have denied plaintiffs their rights to full and equal benefit of the laws and their right to be subject to like
21
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-99-20895-JF/EA1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 • 24 25 26 27 28
i3750O.0l

punishment under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
98. Defendants' acts were the result of discriminatory intent, and were done in known
violation of plaintiffs' legal and constitutional rights, without good faith, and have directly and
proximately caused plaintiffs' humiliation, mental pain and suffering.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights
(42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986) (All defendants except CHP and BNE)

99. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege paragraphs 1-98 of this Complaint. 100. Defendants, acting under color of law and in concert with one another, and by way of a conspiracy among them, have caused plaintiffs, and the class they represent, to be denied equal protection of the laws and to be deprived of equal privileges and immunities under the laws, on account of plaintiffs' race and/or national origin, by subjecting them to legally unjustified and racially discriminatory detentions and searches, thereby interfering with plaintiffs' travels through California in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1985(3). The supervisory defendants had knowledge of the conspiracy to violate plaintiffs' civil rights and of the violations committed, and had power to prevent these wrongs, but neglected or refused to do so in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1986. 101. Defendants' acts were done in knowing violation of plaintiffs' legal and constitutional rights, and have directly and proximately caused plaintiffs' humiliation, mental pain and suffering.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Government Code Sections 11135 and 11139

102. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege paragraphs 1-101 of this Complaint.

103. Government Code Section 11135(a) prohibits race discrimination in any program or

activity that is funded directly by the state or receives any financial assistance from the state.

104. State regulations implementing Section 11135 provide that no program receiving

financial assistance from the State of California shall have an unjustified discriminatory impact or

effect on the basis of race.

105.
~~~~

Defendants CHP and BNE receive financial assistance from the State of California,
22
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. C-99-20895-JFEAI

1 and thus is bound to abide by theterms of Government Code §11135 andits implementing

2 regulations.

3

106. Eleventh Amendment immunity of the State of California was waived by the State

4 of California in its enactment of amendments to Government Code § 11139 in theCalifornia Civil

5 Rights Amendments of 1999.

6

107. The drug interdiction methods employed by theCHP and/or BNE discriminate

7 against motorists of color traveling through California, including plaintiffs, as described herein.

8

108. Defendants CHP andBNE's violation of Government Code §11135 and its

9 implementing regulations have caused andwill continue to cause plaintiffs to suffer tremendous

10 harm and public humiliation in that they have been andwill continue to be subjected to CHP and/or

11 BNE's practice of race-based discrimination without judicial intervention.

12

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of Article 1, Section 7 (a) of the California Constitution 13

14

109. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference andreallege paragraphs 1-108of this Complaint.

15

110. Defendants' above-described conduct violated plaintiffs' rights not to be deprived of

16 due process and equal protection of the laws under Article 1, Section 7(a) of the California

17 Constitution.

18

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of Article 1, Section 13of the California Constitution 19

20

111. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference andreallege paragraphs 1-110 of this Complaint.

21

112. Defendants' above-described conduct violated plaintiffs' rights to be free from

22 unreasonable searches andseizures under Article 1, Section 13of the California Constitution.

23

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of Civil Code Section 52.1(b) >24

25

113. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference andreallege paragraphs 1-112of this Complaint.

26

114. Defendants' above-described conduct interfered and/or attempted to interfere with

27 plaintiffs' exercise and/or enjoyment of their rights as secured by theUnited States Constitution

28
2J7S00.01

and/or California Constitution, in violation of California Civil Code section 52.1. 23
FlR-ST AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE N O . C-99-20895-JF/EAI

1

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Intentional Infliction ofEmotional Distress
2

3

115. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege paragraphs 1 -114 ofthis Complaint.

4

116. Defendants' above-described conduct was extreme and outrageous. Said conduct

5 was done intentionally and with conscious disregard of plaintiffs' rights, and directly and

6 proximately caused plaintiffs humiliation, mental pain and suffering.

7

TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Negligent Infliction ofEmotional Distress

8

9

117. Plaintiffs incorporate byreference and reallege paragraphs 1 -116 ofthis Complaint.

10

118. Defendants' above-described conduct constituted a breach ofdefendants' dutyof

11 care toplaintiffs to ensure that defendants did not cause unnecessary orunjustified harm to

12 plaintiffs. It was reasonably foreseeable to alldefendants that a breach ofthat duty by defendants

13 would cause emotional distress to plaintiffs.

14

THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

False Imprisonment

15

16

119. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege paragraphs 1-118 of this Complaint.

17

120. Defendants' above-described conduct restrained plaintiffs against their will and

18 without legal justification.

19

121. Defendants' acts were intentional and done inviolation ofplaintiffs' rights, and

20 have directly and proximately caused plaintiffs humiliation, mental pain and suffering.

21

FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Declaratory Relief

22

23

122. Plaintiffs incorporate byreference and reallege paragraphs 1-121 ofthis Complaint.

123. There is a real and actual controversy between plaintiffs and defendants regarding
• 24

25 whether defendants may undertake toact asdescribed herein. Plaintiffs contend that defendants

26 violated the United States and California Constitutions and the laws ofthe United States andof

27 California. On information and belief, defendants deny that their conduct violated the United

28
237500.01

States and California Constitutions and the laws ofthe United States and ofCalifornia. Plaintiffs

~~ ~

24

~~

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. C-99-20895-JF/EAI

1 fear that they will again be subjected to such unlawful and unconstitutional actions, and seeks a

2 judicial declaration that defendants' conduct deprived plaintiffs of their rights under the United

3 States and California Constitutions and the laws of the United States and California.

4

PRAYER FORRELIEF

5

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that the Court, as to all the defendants and each of them

6 jointly and severally:

7

1. Issue a declaratory judgment that defendants' conduct as complained herein wasa

8 violation of plaintiffs' rights under the United States and California Constitutions and the laws of

9 the United States and California;

10

2. Issue an injunction (a) prohibiting defendants from engaging in vehicular stops or

11 searches based on race or ethnicity; (b) ordering defendants to establish effective preventative

12 mechanisms to ensure that discriminatory traffic stops and vehicular searches do not continue in

13 the future, including, but not limited to the following:

14

(i) to cease and desist from all pretextual stops;

15

(ii) to cease and desist from all searches without probable cause of criminal

16

activity;

17

(iii) to collect and maintain comprehensive records of ail traffic stops in the State

18

of California, including those stops that do not result in the issuance of a

19

citation; and

20

(iv) to establish a procedure to enable each person involved in a traffic stop the

21

right

to file a grievance to contest illegal acts and acts motivated by bias;

22

(v) to establish clear and consistent discipline in the event a grievance is

23

sustained;

' 24

(vi) to establish a Civilian Complaint Review Board;

25

(vii) to appoint an independent auditor who will review the records of officers

26

quarterly to determine that there is compliance with these reforms;

27

(viii) to establish an early warning system which will collect information such as

28
137500.01

citizen complaints against an officer and other information regarding 25
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE N O . C-99-20895-JF/EAI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 V24 25 26 27 28
U7500.01

misconduct and will alert the officer's supervisor when a set number of incidents are recorded; (ix) to establish a mechanism for internal discipline of officers who are found to have engaged in racial profiling and pretextual stops; and (x) to require that all officers participate in regular and recurring training to assure that the officers do not act dueto bias based on race or ethnicity. 3. Award compensatory and general damages against defendants and each of them, for plaintiffs in an amount to be determined according to proof; 4. Award exemplary and punitive damages against all defendants sued in their individual capacities in an amount to be proven at trial; 5. Award statutory damages and penalties pursuant to California Civil Codes section 52(b); 6. Award plaintiffs their costs, expenses and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to42 U.S.C. 1988, California Civil Codes sections 52(b)and 52.1(h), and California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5;and 7. Grant such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Rule 38(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 3-6, Local Rules, United States District Court, Northern District of California, plaintiffs demand trial byjury forall the issues plead herein so triable.

DATED: November 30, 1999

KEKER & VANNEST, L.L.P.

By: JQKB. STREETER 4 0 N S. TIGAR REBECCA K. SULLIVAN Attorneys for Plaintiffs

26
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE N O . C-99-20895-JF/EAI

1 DATED: November 30,1999 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 '24 25 26 27 28
y 7500.01

THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OFNORTHERN CALIFORNIA

By:

M.i

MICHELLE ALEXANDER

'/>.-

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

27
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. C-99-20895-JF/EAI

PROOF OF SERVICE

I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action. My business address is:

710 Sansome Street

4

San Francisco, California 94111-1704

5

On the date specified below, I caused the following documents to be served:

6

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF,

7

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

8 (XX )(BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand to the addressee(s) listed below.
9 ( )(BY FACSIMILE AND MAIL) I caused the document(s) listed above to be served by telefaxing said document(s) to the number(s) listed below at the location(s) shown as follows and also placed the document(s) in a sealed envelope(s) with postage thereon frilly prepaid and deposited the envelope(s) with the United States Postal Service (as described in service by mail
12 above).

13 ( )(BY FEDERAL EXPRESS) I caused the document(s) to be served by placing a true copy thereof [to which was attached a copy of this document(s)] in a sealed Federal Express overnight

envelope bearing Airbill Nos. listed below. The overnight envelope was then picked up by a

i r Federal Express employee at the above business address in San Francisco, California, and was addressed as listed below.

16 The envelope(s) was addressed to the following:
17

Tyler B. Pon

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

Department of Justice

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000

20

San Francisco, CA 94102-3664

Executed on November 30, 1999, at San Francisco, California.

I, Maureen L. Stone, declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 23

24

>

MAUREEN L. STONE 25

26

27

28

 
 89 F.Supp.2d 1131 (2000)
Curtis V. RODRIGUEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, et al., Defendants.
No. C 99 20895 JF EAI.
United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division.
March 13, 2000.
113234 *1132 *1133 *1134 Jon B Streeter, San Francisco, CA, Michelle Alexander, San Francisco, CA, Alan L. Schlosser, San Francisco, CA, for plaintiffs.
Bill Lockyer, San Francisco, CA, Tyler Pon, San Francisco, CA, S Michelle Inan, Oakland, CA, for defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING MOTION TO SEVER PLAINTIFFS AND/OR STRIKE CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS AND DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLEADING
FOGEL, District Judge.
This case presents a broad, vigorously disputed challenge to an alleged law enforcement practice known as racial profiling. Defendants[1] have filed three motions directed at the pleadings: (1) a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint; (2) a motion to sever plaintiffs and/or strike Plaintiffs' class action allegations; and (3) a motion to strike certain portions of the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs[2] oppose the motions. The Court has read the moving and responding papers and has considered the oral arguments of counsel presented on February 18, 2000. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part, and the motion to sever plaintiffs and/or strike the class action allegations and the motion to strike portions of the First Amended Complaint will be denied.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants maintain a policy, pattern and practice of targeting African-Americans and Latinos in conducting stops, detentions, interrogations and searches of motorists. The individual plaintiffs have alleged specific incidents of racial profiling which they claim occurred on or near State Highway 152 and Interstate Highway 5 in the Pacheco Pass area of Santa Clara and Merced Counties. Both the individual and the organizational plaintiffs allege that racial profiling is an integral part of a federally funded drug interdiction program sponsored by the United States Drug Enforcement Agency known as "Operation Pipeline" as well as other drug interdiction efforts. Plaintiffs base their allegations in part upon a draft report of California's Joint Legislative Task Force on Government Oversight on September 29, 1999, which alleges the existence of racial profiling in Operation Pipeline.
II. MOTION TO DISMISS

A. Legal Standard
The issue to be decided on a motion to dismiss is not whether a plaintiff's claims have merit but rather whether the moving defendant has shown beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling him or her to relief. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). The court's review is limited to 1135 the face of the complaint, documents *1135 referenced by the complaint and matters of which the court may take judicial notice. See Levine v. Diamanthuset, Inc., 950 F.2d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir.1991); In re Stac Elecs. Sec. Litig., 89 F.3d 1399, 1405 n. 4 (9th Cir.1996); MGIC Indem. Corp. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 504 (9th Cir.1986). Ordinarily, a complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for only two reasons: (1) lack of a cognizable legal theory or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. See Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 533-34 (9th Cir.1984) (citing 2A J. Moore, Moore's Fed. Practice ¶ 12.08 at 2271 (2d ed.1982)). When a court considers a motion to dismiss, all allegations of the complaint are construed in the plaintiff's favor. See Sun Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Dierdorff, 825 F.2d 187, 191 (9th Cir.1987). In particular, "[c]ivil rights complaints are to be liberally construed," and need only comply with F.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Buckey v. County of Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir.1992). For a motion to dismiss to be granted, it must appear to a certainty that the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any set of facts that could be proved. See Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1433, 1439 (9th Cir.1987). Motions to dismiss generally are viewed with disfavor under this liberal standard and are rarely granted. See Gilligan v. Jamco Dev. Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 249 (9th Cir.1997).
B. NAACP's and LULAC's Standing
Both of the organizational plaintiffs 0907 NAACP and LULAC 0907 are nonprofit membership organizations which allege that they are suing on behalf of their members. Defendants argue that NAACP and LULAC lack standing to sue on behalf of their members under the circumstances of this case.
"[E]ven in the absence of injury to itself, an association may have standing solely as representative of its members." Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 511, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975); see, e.g., NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 78 S.Ct. 1163, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488 (1958); International Union, United Auto. v. Brock, 477 U.S. 274, 106 S.Ct. 2523, 91 L.Ed.2d 228 (1986). Associational standing is particularly appropriate where "the association is seeking to represent the interests which are central to the purpose of the organization" and "where the relief sought is some form of prospective remedy, such as declaratory judgment, which will inure to the benefit of the organization's membership." Peick v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 724 F.2d 1247, 1259 (7th Cir.1983).
An association has standing if (1) its members would have standing to sue in their own right; (2) the interests the organization seeks to protect are relevant to the organization's purpose; and (3) neither the claim asserted nor the relief sought requires the participation of individual members of the organization in the lawsuit. See Brock, 477 U.S. at 282, 106 S.Ct. 2523; Hunt v. Washington State Apple Adver. Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 97 S.Ct. 2434, 53 L.Ed.2d 383 (1977); Individuals for Responsible Gov't, Inc. v. Washoe County, 110 F.3d 699, 702 (9th Cir.1997).
Defendants do not dispute that the interests sought to be protected by NAACP and LULAC in this litigation are relevant to the purposes of these organizations, which include opposing racial discrimination against AfricanAmericans and Latinos, respectively. In addition, Defendants also acknowledge that Plaintiffs have alleged that individual members of NAACP and LULAC have been stopped and detained by CHP and BNE officers on the basis of race.
Defendants' primary argument is that the organizational plaintiffs' allegations are too general and that more specific allegations should be made so that one may determine the actual identities of particular members of each organization who claim to have been subjected to Defendants' alleged illegal practices. However, while 1136 information about claimed injuries caused to members of NAACP and LULAC may be obtained in the course of *1136 discovery, no legal authority requires that the names and contact information of individual members be alleged in the complaint. Legal Aid Society of Hawaii v. Legal Services Corp., 145 F.3d 1017, 1030 (9th Cir.1998), cited by Defendants, is inapposite. That case considered the issue of standing in the context of a motion for

summary judgment rather than a motion to dismiss; it thus involved an examination of the entire record following an opportunity for discovery rather than a bare pleading. See id. at 1030-31.
Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs' claims cannot be adjudicated without the participation of individual members of NAACP and LULAC. Defendants quite reasonably point out that proof of the existence of a policy or practice of racial profiling requires proof of more than one instance of official misconduct. However, Plaintiffs in fact have pled more than one instance of official misconduct. There is no authority for the proposition that only members of the organizational plaintiffs can serve as individual plaintiffs; at this early stage of the proceedings, it would appear to be sufficient that the individual plaintiffs are members of the racial and ethnic groups for whom the organizational plaintiffs state that they are advocates.
The Court concludes that for present purposes NAACP and LULAC have standing to sue on behalf of their members. As in Legal Aid Society of Hawaii, see id., at 1029-31, this conclusion does not preclude a determination that these organizations lack standing later in the litigation.
C. Venue
The incident of racial profiling alleged by Rodriguez occurred in Santa Clara County, which is located in the Northern District of California; the incidents alleged by Lopez and Washington occurred in Merced County, which is in the Eastern District of California. Defendants argue that the proper venue for the Lopez and the Washington incidents is the Eastern District rather than the Northern District. However, venue is proper in any district "in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) (1999). Section 1391(b)(2) does not require that a majority of the events have occurred in the district where suit is filed, nor does it require that the events in that district predominate. See Sidco Indus. Inc. v. Wimar Tahoe Corp., 768 F.Supp. 1343, 1346 (D.Or.1991) (language of § 1391(b)(2) "contemplates that there may be more than one district in which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, and that venue would be proper in each such district"); see also Bates v. C & S Adjusters, Inc., 980 F.2d 865, 867 (2d Cir.1992); First of Mich. Corp. v. Bramlet, 141 F.3d 260, 264 (6th Cir.1998). All that Plaintiffs need show is that a substantial part of the events giving rise to their claims occurred in the Northern District of California.
Rodriguez, a resident of Santa Clara County, allegedly was stopped in Santa Clara County, in the Northern District. Moreover, Plaintiffs claim in their class action allegations that Defendants routinely utilize racial profiling in the Pacheco Pass area, much of which is located in the Northern District. Plaintiffs allege that the stops of Rodriguez, Lopez, Washington and all other purported class members are related because they stem from the same alleged practice or policy of racial profiling in the Pacheco Pass area. Plaintiffs thus clearly are alleging that a substantial part of the events giving rise to this action occurred in the Northern District. Accordingly, while venue would be proper in the Eastern District, venue also is proper in the Northern District.
D. Claims Against Helmick and Doane as Supervisory Officials
Defendants urge dismissal of the claims against Helmick and Doane because the First Amended Complaint does not contain specific factual allegations supporting the alleged conclusion that these defendants maintain or are 1137 responsible for a *1137 policy which leads directly to stops of Plaintiffs' vehicles on the basis of race. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explicitly has rejected a judicially crafted heightened pleading standard for civil rights cases; instead, it has held that such claims need only comply with F.R.Civ.P. 8 (a). See Bergquist v. County of Cochise, 806 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir.1986), disapproved on other grounds by City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989). As the circuit court has stated:
This circuit applies a rule of reason to civil rights actions challenged for sufficiency at the pleading stage. While a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled, plaintiff is not expected to plead his evidence or specific factual details not ascertainable in advance of discovery.

Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1340 (9th Cir.1986) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also San Jose Charter of the Hell's Angels Motorcycle Club v. City of San Jose, No. C 99 20022 SW PVT, 1999 WL 1211672, at *12 (N.D.Cal. Dec.6, 1999) ("Civil rights plaintiffs ... have never been expected to plead their evidence or specific factual details not ascertainable before discovery has taken place.")
A supervisory law enforcement official is liable in his or her individual capacity "if he [or she] set in motion a series of acts by others, or knowingly refused to terminate a series of acts by others, which he [or she] knew or reasonably should have known, would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury." Larez v. City of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d 630, 646 (9th Cir.1991) (internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted); see also Bergquist, 806 F.2d at 1370. The First Amended Complaint alleges that Helmick and Doane personally participated in racial profiling, acted jointly and in concert with others who racially profiled, authorized, acquiesced in or failed to take action to prevent racial profiling, promulgated policies and procedures pursuant to which racial profiling occurred, with deliberate indifference failed and refused to implement and maintain adequate training and supervision and/or ratified the use of racial profiling. The First Amended Complaint also alleges that CHP and BNE supervisors and management continue to encourage these activities in Operation Pipeline despite evidence that drivers of color are targeted and subjected to unwarranted stops, detentions, interrogations and searches, and that the supervisors have been aware that CHP and BNE officers are engaging in racial profiling but have refused to stop it. These allegations, if proved, would establish liability under Larez, Bergquist and Harris. Cf. Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches v. Maryland Dep't of State Police, 72 F.Supp.2d 560, 565 (D.Md.1999). Accordingly, applying as it must the ordinary pleading standard of F.R.Civ.P. 8(a), the Court concludes that the claims against Helmick and Doane are sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.

E. Immunity Under the California Tort Claims Act

Defendants assert that they are immune from Plaintiffs' state law statutory and common law tort claims under three separate provisions of the California Government Code. These code sections provide as follows:

Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public employee is not liable for an injury resulting from his act or omission where the act or omission was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested in him, whether or not such discretion be abused.

Cal. Gov't Code § 820.2.

1138

Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public employee is not liable for an injury caused by the act or omission of another person. Nothing in this section exonerates a public employee from liability for injury proximately caused by *1138 his own negligent or wrongful act or omission.

Cal. Gov't Code § 820.8.

Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public entity is not liable for an injury resulting from an act or omission of an employee of the public entity where the employee is immune from liability.

Cal. Gov't Code § 815.2(b).

Preliminarily, the Court notes that these immunity provisions do not apply to claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. See Cal. Gov't Code § 814. The Court also is mindful of the admonition of the California Supreme Court that "in governmental tort cases, the rule is liability, immunity is the exception." Lopez v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist., 40 Cal.3d 780, 221 Cal.Rptr. 840, 710 P.2d 907, 915 (1985) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). As was explained in Lopez,

section 820.2 confers immunity only with respect to those "basic policy decisions" which have been committed to coordinate branches of government, and does not immunize government entities from liability for subsequent ministerial actions taken in the implementation of those basic policy decisions. This distinction is sometimes characterized as that between the "planning" and the "operational" levels of decision-making.

Id.
Under California law, government defendants have the burden of proving that the actions of government employees fall within scope of a statutory immunity. In Lopez, "[s]uch a showing was not and could not have been made by [the defendant] at the demurrer stage," and "[i]t therefore would [have been] error to sustain [the defendant's] demurrer based on Government Code section 820.2." Id. at 916; see also Bell v. California, 63 Cal. App.4th 919, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 541, 547 (1998) (section 820.2 "requires proof that the specific conduct that gave rise to the suit involved an actual exercise of discretion 0907 a conscious balancing of risks and advantages; the term is limited to `basic policy decisions'").
As was the case in Lopez, The First Amended Complaint alleges actions on the part of Defendants which go beyond "basic policy decisions." For example, it is alleged that Defendants' supervisory personnel were consciously aware of the racially discriminatory nature of Operation Pipeline and similar programs in training individual officers and encouraged and commended them in their alleged discriminatory tactics, and that the officers who stopped Rodriguez, Lopez and Washington did so with a conscious racial motive. The individual plaintiffs also allege that they were falsely imprisoned, allegations as to which there is an explicit statutory basis of liability under Government Code § 820.4. Thus, because Plaintiffs' allegations in the present case are broad enough to encompass conduct not within the scope of the cited immunity provisions, the Court cannot resolve at the pleading stage the issue of whether any or all of the immunities bar Plaintiffs' claims.[3]Davison by Sims v. Santa Barbara High School District, 48 F.Supp.2d 1225 (C.D.Cal.1998), relied upon by Defendants, is inapposite because the allegations of the complaint in that case were limited to "basic policy decisions."
F. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
The First Amended Complaint alleges a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which provides that
No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
1139 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. The regulations implementing Title VI provide that no program *1139 receiving federal assistance through the Department of Justice shall
utilize criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin, or have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program as respects individuals of a particular race, color, or national origin.
28 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2).
Defendants argue the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under Title VI because they fail to allege specific facts from which it can be concluded that Defendants engage in racial discrimination. However, as noted above, there is no heightened pleading standard in the Ninth Circuit for civil rights complaints; compliance with F.R.Civ.P. 8(a) generally constitutes sufficient particularity to withstand a motion to dismiss.
Under Title VI, there are two types of potential liability. Plaintiffs may state a claim for damages pursuant to the statute, for equitable relief pursuant to the regulations or for both. See Larry P. by Lucille P. v. Riles, 793 F.2d 969, 981-82 (9th Cir.1984) (citing Guardians Ass'n v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of City of New York, 463 U.S. 582, 103 S.Ct. 3221, 77 L.Ed.2d 866 (1983)). The statute requires proof of discriminatory intent; the regulations do not. See 793 F.2d at 981-82.
"To state a claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq., a plaintiff must allege that (1) the entity involved is engaging in racial discrimination; and (2) the entity involved is receiving federal financial assistance. Although the plaintiff must prove intent at trial, it need not be pled in the complaint." Fobbs v. Holy Cross Health Sys. Corp., 29 F.3d 1439, 1447 (9th Cir.1994) (citations omitted). In the present matter, Plaintiffs have met the pleading

standard set forth in Fobbs. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants engage in racial discrimination by stopping, detaining, interrogating and searching motorists on the basis of race, and they describe the discriminatory methods and practices Defendants allegedly employ. Plaintiffs also allege that CHP and BNE are recipients of federal funding. Nothing more is required to state a claim under Title VI, although Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants acted with discriminatory intent.
To establish a prima facie case that Defendants violated Title VI regulations, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that Defendants have a program, policy or practice that has a "discriminatory impact." Larry P. by Lucille P., 793 F.2d at 982. Plaintiffs allege that CHP's drug interdiction efforts have a discriminatory impact on motorists of color. Anticipating Defendants' position that their drug interdiction tactics are justified by law enforcement necessity, see id., Plaintiffs further allege that these tactics are largely unsuccessful and therefore not justified. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that only a small percentage of Operation Pipeline stops and searches result in the discovery of incriminating evidence, yet large numbers of motorists of color are the victims of racial discrimination through racial profiling.
The Court concludes that the allegations of the First Amended Complaint adequately state a discriminatory-intent claim for damages and a discriminatory-impact claim for equitable relief under Title VI. Cf. Maryland State Conference of NAACP, 72 F.Supp.2d at 566-68.
G. Fourth Amendment
In Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996), the United States Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment is not violated when a minor traffic violation is a pretext rather than the actual motivation for a stop by law enforcement. Thus, the individual plaintiffs' allegations that they were stopped for pretextual reasons, without more, would not state a claim under the Fourth Amendment.[4]
1140 *1140 However, Plaintiffs make Fourth Amendment claims which are not barred by Whren. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have subjected them not only to baseless stops but also to prolonged detentions, intrusive interrogations and searches without probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that any traffic violation or crime has been committed and without consent. For example, Rodriguez and Washington allege that they were stopped even though Defendants did not have a reasonable suspicion that either had committed any traffic violation or crime[5], that they were searched even though neither had consented to being searched and that Defendants had no basis for searching them without warrants.
The Fourth Amendment is violated when a motorist is stopped without reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation or crime and searched without consent or probable cause. See, e.g., United States v. Jimenez-Medina, 173 F.3d 752, 754 (9th Cir.1999); Whren, 517 U.S. at 809-10, 116 S.Ct. 1769. Detentions or searches that are prolonged or otherwise unreasonable in view of the reason for the stop also are unlawful under the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., United States v. Foppe, 993 F.2d 1444 (9th Cir.1993) (describing as a violation of the Fourth Amendment an officer's search of a motorist unrelated to the traffic violation that originally justified the stop of the motorist's vehicle). The First Amended Complaint alleges facts with respect to each of the Plaintiffs which, if proved, would establish that CHP violated the Fourth Amendment by the intrusiveness and duration of its searches and detentions even assuming a valid stop. See, e.g., Martinez v. Nygaard, 831 F.2d 822, 827 (9th Cir.1987) ("The stop may last only so long as is necessary to carry out its purpose and the investigative methods used should be the least intrusive means reasonably available to confirm or dispel the officer's suspicion."); Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983) (same). The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a Fourth Amendment claim.
H. Equal Protection
Defendants next assert that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for violation of the Equal Protection Clause because they have failed to identify "similarly situated" Caucasian individuals who were treated differently from Rodriguez, Lopez and Washington. However, in the civil context, plaintiffs properly state a claim for relief under

the Equal Protection Clause if they allege that Defendants acted with discriminatory intent. See, e.g., Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 247-48, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976). Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 9(b), Plaintiffs are permitted to plead intent generally. Plaintiffs have met this standard.
Defendants rely heavily upon United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 116 S.Ct. 1480, 134 L.Ed.2d 687 (1996), in support of this aspect of their motion to dismiss. However, while Armstrong is a case of critical importance in 1141 the criminal context, it is less instructive in a civil case such as the present one.[6] In Armstrong, *1141 several criminal defendants were indicted on drug and firearm charges involving crack cocaine. The defendants, who claimed that they were being subjected to selective prosecution because they were African-American, filed a motion seeking evidence to support their claim and to support a motion to dismiss the criminal charges. The Court held that while F.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(C) authorizes criminal defendants to examine government documents material to a defense against the government's case-in-chief, these defendants could not discover documents material to their selective prosecution claim unless they produced some evidence that similarly situated defendants of other races had not been prosecuted. Armstrong neither addressed the standard for discovery in civil cases based upon an Equal Protection claim nor interpreted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; rather, it addressed the distinct question of what showing a criminal defendant must make to obtain discovery of evidence which might be relevant to a selective prosecution motion seeking dismissal of criminal charges.
The Court in Armstrong emphasized that the judiciary owes special deference to the prosecutorial office. The exercise of prosecutorial discretion in bringing charges is a power within the "`special province' of the Executive." Id. at 464, 116 S.Ct. 1480. "As a result, the presumption of regularity supports their prosecutorial decisions and, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties." Id. (internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted). Law enforcement officers, in contrast, never have been afforded the same presumption of regularity extended to prosecutors. Courts have recognized the possibility that officers in the field occasionally may abuse their discretion and selectively target specific groups and individuals on the basis of race or other illegitimate factors. See, e.g., United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 559, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 (1976); Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 661, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979).
The result in Armstrong rests in part on the Court's conclusion that "[t]he similarly situated requirement does not make a selective prosecution claim impossible to prove" because the class of similarly situated individuals is limited to the group of individuals arrested for the particular crime at issue. 517 U.S. at 466, 116 S.Ct. 1480. In the civil context, however, such a requirement well might be impossible to meet. In the present action, the class of similarly situated individuals necessarily would include all motorists present in areas where Defendants were patrolling. It is highly doubtful that Defendants or any other law enforcement agency maintain records identifying law-abiding individuals who are not stopped. The only similarly situated persons as to whom records might be maintained would be the relatively small subset of individuals who were stopped and questioned by the police but not arrested, and even for this group, it is difficult to conceive what data Plaintiffs could obtain absent discovery which have not been alleged in the First Amended Complaint already. Consistent with Washington and its progeny, this Court concludes that Plaintiffs have stated an Equal Protection claim by alleging that Defendants acted with discriminatory intent and that Defendants knew about but refused to stop racially discriminatory practices on the part of their officers and by alleging the existence of statistical evidence and other facts which if proved would support an inference of discriminatory intent.[7]
1142 *1142 I. Equitable and Declaratory Relief
Defendants contend that Plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief because they have failed to allege a real or immediate threat of future injury as a result of Defendants' alleged conduct. Defendants also assert that Plaintiffs are not entitled to declaratory relief because they have not presented a live case or controversy.
In City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983), the Supreme Court held that because the plaintiff was unable to establish a real or immediate threat of injury, he lacked standing to pursue equitable relief. Lyons, however, is distinguishable from the present case for at least three reasons. First, the Court based its decision in Lyons on a full evidentiary record, not the untested allegations of the complaint.

Plaintiffs are entitled to discovery to attempt to establish an evidentiary basis for their claims for injunctive relief. See Riggs v. City of Albuquerque, 916 F.2d 582, 586-87 (10th Cir.1990). After discovery, Defendants may attack Plaintiffs' entitlement to injunctive relief by a motion for summary judgment. Second, in Lyons, in order to grant injunctive relief the trial court would have had to conclude that the plaintiff was likely to commit crimes in the future; here, the availability of relief will turn upon whether Plaintiffs can show that they and those they seek to represent are likely to be subjected to future racial profiling. See Maryland State Conference of NAACP, 72 F.Supp.2d at 565 (D.Md.1999). Third, Plaintiffs allege a pattern and practice of illegal law enforcement activity. "The Lyons complaint, on the other hand, did not assert that there was a pattern and practice of applying choke holds without provocation or, if it did state such a claim, the Court found it was not supported by the record." Id. at 564-65. Injunctive relief may be appropriate if Plaintiffs are able to establish a pattern or practice of racial profiling. See Allee v. Medrano, 416 U.S. 802, 815, 94 S.Ct. 2191, 40 L.Ed.2d 566 (1974); cf. Hodgers-Durgin v. de la Vina, 199 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc) (injunctive relief inappropriate where plaintiffs are unable to establish future threat on full evidentiary record).
Defendants also suggest, citing concerns of comity and federalism, that this Court should not consider granting equitable relief to Plaintiffs even if they have standing to seek it because such relief would constitute undue federal interference with the autonomy of state agencies. This Court is very mindful of these concerns. However, as noted at oral argument, this action is likely to have a number of discrete procedural stages. Even if Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied, Plaintiffs still must establish that this case is appropriate for class certification, and even if class certification is granted, Plaintiffs must prove that their disputed allegations have merit. As noted previously, the Court's role given the present procedural posture of the case is not to comment upon the validity of Plaintiff's claims but rather to decide if Plaintiffs have alleged facts which if proved might entitle them to some or all of the relief they seek. By this order, the Court determines only that Plaintiffs have alleged enough to entitle them to proceed with discovery to attempt to prove their allegations. The entirely appropriate concerns raised by Defendants are better addressed after there has been at least some development of the factual record; to conclude otherwise would be to suggest that federal courts never ought to be concerned with the activities of state agencies under any circumstances.
Defendants' arguments with respect to Plaintiffs' claim for declaratory relief mirror those made with respect to the claim for injunctive relief. For the same reasons discussed above, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have presented a live case or controversy which may warrant declaratory relief.
J. Eleventh Amendment
Defendants correctly argue that Plaintiffs' state law claims must be dismissed as to CHP and BNE because the 1143 Eleventh Amendment bars the prosecution *1143 of these claims against the State in federal court. Plaintiffs
appropriately do not contest this point, except to note that the State has waived its immunity to Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to California Government Code §§ 11135 and 11139. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' state law claims (other than their claims pursuant to the Government Code) against the CHP and the BNE must be dismissed.
K. Monetary Damages
Defendants contend that Plaintiffs' claims of violations of article I, § 7(a) (due process and equal protection) and § 13 (unreasonable seizures and searches) of the California Constitution must be dismissed insofar as they seek monetary damages because these provisions of the California Constitution do not provide for a private right of action for damages.
This federal Court is reluctant to predict whether the Supreme Court of California would recognize a private right of action for damages directly under the relevant provisions of the California Constitution. However, California Civil Code § 52.1(b) already allows Plaintiffs to seek damages for interference with rights secured by the California Constitution. It does not appear from the face of the First Amended Complaint that Plaintiffs are seeking damages beyond those allowed by the Civil Code; the Court thus sees no need as a practical matter to

determine whether there is a right of action for damages directly under the provisions of the California Constitution.[8]
III. MOTION TO SEVER PLAINTIFFS AND/OR STRIKE CLASS ALLEGATIONS
Defendants move to sever Lopez and Washington from this case on the grounds that their alleged experiences of racial profiling are not sufficiently similar to those of Rodriguez to maintain them in a single action with Rodriguez. Defendants also move to strike the class action allegations from the First Amended Complaint.
As noted above, the Court concludes that the allegations of the three individual plaintiffs are factually and legally similar. The fact that the First Amended Complaint contains different details about each of the Plaintiffs and the incidents about which each complains 0907 for example, that Rodriguez and Lopez are Latino while Washington is African-American 0907 does not alter the fact that each claim arises from the same alleged policy, pattern and practice of racial profiling. The factual record as to each individual Plaintiff has yet to be developed. Considering only the allegations of the First Amended Complaint, the Court concludes that it would be inappropriate to sever Plaintiffs Lopez and Washington from this action at the present time.
The same is true with respect to the class allegations. To the extent that Rodriguez, Lopez and Washington raise different issues than those raised by the purported class, the appropriateness of any or all of them serving as a class representative will be tested in the context of a motion for certification of the class. Accordingly, the Court declines to strike the class action allegations at this stage of the proceedings.
IV. MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLEADING
The First Amended Complaint contains an excerpt from the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Washington v. Lambert, 98 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir.1996), which describes "an all too familiar set of circumstances 0907 an intrusive law enforcement 1144 stop and seizure of innocent persons on the *1144 basis of suspicions rooted principally in the race of `the suspects'" id., at 1182. Defendants move to strike this quotation from the First Amended Complaint on the grounds that it is scandalous. However, while it is neither necessary nor customary for a party to include an excerpt from a published appellate case in a pleading, Defendants cite no authority that such inclusion is improper per se or is likely to cause any prejudice to Defendants.
Defendants also move to strike references to the report issued by California's Joint Legislative Task Force on Government Oversight on September 29, 1999, regarding alleged racial profiling in Operation Pipeline. Defendants argue that the Task Force report does not relate to this case. However, the Task Force report discusses in detail alleged racial profiling by Defendants and forms part of the factual predicate for Plaintiffs' claim that racial profiling is present here.
V. ORDER
Good cause therefor appearing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint is GRANTED without leave to amend as to the eighth through thirteenth causes of action against Defendants California Highway Patrol and Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement; the motion is otherwise DENIED;
2. Defendants' Motion to Sever Plaintiffs and/or Strike Class Action Allegations from the First Amended Complaint is DENIED;
3. Defendants' Motion to Strike Portions of Pleading is DENIED;
4. Defendants shall file their Answer within thirty (30) days after the date this order is filed;

5. Discovery shall remain stayed pending the Case Management Conference scheduled for March 20, 2000, at 1:30 pm, and until further order of the Court.
[1] Defendants are the California Highway Patrol ("CHP"), the Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement ("BNE"), California Highway Patrol Commissioner D.O. Helmick ("Helmick") and Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement Chief Joe Doane ("Doane").
[2] Plaintiffs are Curtis V. Rodriguez ("Rodriguez"), Jose Lopez ("Lopez"), MacArthur Washington ("Washington"), California Branches of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ("NAACP") and the California League of United Latin American Citizens ("LULAC").
[3] Obviously, nothing herein precludes Defendants from reasserting any statutory immunity at a later stage in these proceedings.
[4] Whren does not hold that a law enforcement officer's motivation is entirely irrelevant when probable cause for a stop is based on a traffic violation. As explained in Whren, "[t]he Constitution prohibits selective enforcement of the law based on considerations such as race. But the constitutional basis for objecting to intentionally discriminatory application of laws is the Equal Protection Clause, not the Fourth Amendment. Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis." 517 U.S. at 813, 116 S.Ct. 1769.
[5] It is settled law that race or appearance alone is insufficient to justify a stop or arrest. See United States v. Bautista, 684 F.2d 1286, 1289 (9th Cir.1982) ("race or color alone is not a sufficient basis for making an investigatory stop"); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 886-87, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975) (appearance of Mexican ancestry alone is insufficient to justify a stop or arrest under the Fourth Amendment).
[6] This Court notes and respectfully disagrees with the discussion of Armstrong and the Equal Protection claim in Chavez v. Illinois State Police, 27 F.Supp.2d 1053 (N.D.Ill. 1998).
[7] The statistical evidence and other facts alleged by Plaintiffs also would if proved support an inference of discriminatory intent. As noted in Washington, statistical evidence "may for all practical purposes demonstrate unconstitutionality because in various circumstances the discrimination is very difficult to explain on nonracial grounds." 426 U.S. at 242, 96 S.Ct. 2040; see United States v. Laymon, 730 F.Supp. 332 (D.Colo.1990) (statistical pattern and other evidence established unconstitutional racial targeting in stops and searches).
[8] As suggested at oral argument, this Court would be extremely reluctant to find a basis for tort liability against a state in the absence of an explicit (as opposed to an implied) waiver by the state of sovereign immunity. The fact that the California Legislature enacted Civil Code § 52.1(b) is a strong indication that any waiver of sovereign immunity with respect to claims based upon the California Constitution was limited to the express terms of that statute.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 ACLU

Page 1 of 3

URL: http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/racialprofiling/15842prs19991130.html
ACLU and Coalition Groups File Suit Against CA Law Enforcement Agencies for Racial Profiling (11/30/1999)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SAN FRANCISCO - Charging civil rights violations as a result of racially motivated traffic stops by California law enforcement officers, the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California today filed a federal class action lawsuit against the California Highway Patrol and Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the California Branches of the NAACP, the California League of United Latin American Citizens, and three motorists of color in U.S. District Court (San Jose).
"This lawsuit challenges the racially discriminatory practices of the CHP and BNE in their drug interdiction efforts," said Michelle Alexander, Director of the Racial Justice Project of the ACLU of Northern California. "Pursuant to Operation Pipeline, people of color are routinely stopped, searched and treated like criminals by law enforcement officers when they have done nothing more than commit a minor traffic violation or no violation at all."
"These racially biased practices cannot be justified by the hope that if officers stop and search enough people of color they will eventually find some drugs," she said. "Law enforcement based on racial stereotypes is immoral and illegal."
Today's action amends the earlier lawsuit filed on June 3, 1999, by the ACLU on behalf of Curtis Rodriguez against the CHP and the BNE charging race discrimination. The complaint has been amended to include the additional plaintiffs and class allegations.
The lawsuit charges that the CHP and the BNE violated the plaintiffs' rights secured by the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, including the right to travel as protected by the Commerce Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clauses of Article IV and the Fourteenth Amendment. In addition to seeking compensatory and punitive damages, plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief requiring defendants to desist from and remedy these illegal race-based practices.
"The time is long overdue for these racially biased police practices to come to an end," said Walter Wilson, Vice President of the California NAACP. "These practices undermine faith in the criminal justice system and cause severe harm in police-community relations."
The complaint alleges that the CHP and the BNE instruct officers to use minor traffic violations as an opportunity to interrogate motorists and search for drugs, even when there is no evidence that the motorist is engaged in criminal activity.
"Studies of racial profiling in other states have shown that, contrary to popular belief, people of color are not more likely than whites to be carrying drugs or other contraband in their vehicles" Alexander said. "Yet, officers continue to rely on racial stereotypes when deciding whom to stop, question and search in connection with minor traffic violations."
The ACLU said that this policy and practice has a grossly disparate impact on people of color, who are far more likely to be viewed as suspicious or likely drug couriers. Thousands of innocent motorists are subjected to humiliating interrogations and searches of their vehicles every year based on false racial stereotypes.
"The Latino community in California is gravely concerned about racial profiling," said Marcos Contreras,

http://www.aclu.org/printer/printer.php

9/12/2006

ACLU

Page 2 of 3

Statewide Director of the California LULAC. "In front of our families and loved ones, we are being humiliated and interrogated for no good reason. We joined this lawsuit because these practices have got to stop."
Jon Streeter, a litigation parter at Keker & Van Nest, concurred: "It is critical for us, as members of the private bar, to play an active role in bringing to an end race-based police stops in California." Keker & Van Nest, a major law firm in San Francisco, is donating its services to the case pro bono.
"People of color have an equal right to travel our streets and freeways without fear of unjustified stops, searches and interrogations by government officials," Streeter said. "The defendants' drug interdiction practices violate federal civil rights laws, the U.S. Constitution, and are inconsistent with out democratic values."
The individuals the ACLU is representing:
-- Curtis Rodriguez, a Latino attorney from San Jose, was stopped and searched by the CHP on June 6, 1998, just minutes after he witnessed a slew of race-based stops of Latino drivers within a 10-mile stretch of Highway 152. The CHP officer told Mr. Rodriguez that he stopped them because his car has touched the line, and because he had turned his headlights on. (Drivers are advised to turn on their headlights in this section of Highway 152).
"The officer told me he was going to search the car for weapons," said Rodriguez. "I refused permission for the search. Since I'm an attorney, I know my rights. The officer had no probable cause to search the car, so I refused consent to search.
"Unfortunately, the officer refused to respect my legal rights. He ordered me out of the car and searched the car, without my permission. Of course, he found nothing illegal. The officer then checked out my license, my passenger's license and my insurance papers, and after ten minutes, he ordered us back into the car. Finally he told us we could go. He didn't issue me a ticket, because I didn't do anything wrong."
-- Jose Lopez, was stopped by the CHP while traveling with his companion and the mother of his son, Stephanie Gevorkian, who is white. They were stopped near the intersection of Highway 152 and Interstate 5.
The CHP officer said that he stopped them because a small crystal was hanging from their rearview window. Ms. Gevorkian immediately apologized, took the crystal down and put it in the glove department. Instead of ticketing Mr. Lopez or allowing the couple to go on their way, however, the officers ordered Mr. Lopez out of the car.
The couple was then interrogated separately for approximately 30 minutes. One officer repeatedly asked Ms. Gevorkian "what are you doing with that man?" According to Ms. Gevorkian, his tone was angry and accusing, and she understood him to be asking why she was with a Latino. One of the officers searched their vehicle, but the search turned up nothing. After being interrogated and subjected to a vehicle search, Mr. Lopez and Ms. Gevorkian were finally allowed to go. No citations were issued and no arrests were made.
-- MacArthur Washington, who is African American, was stopped on May 26, 1999 and searched illegally by the CHP and BNE near the intersection of Highway 152 and Interstate 5. He was on his way to pick up a coworker and go to work.
Mr. Washington lives in an agricultural area, and has worked for about four years baling hay, a task that must be performed early in the morning. On his way to his co-worker's house, a CHP vehicle spotted him, made a U-turn and stopped him.
The officers told Mr. Washington that he had been stopped because the light illuminating his rear license plate light was broken (that was not true). The officers then searched his vehicle without his consent or probable cause. Although the search turned up nothing, and Mr. Washington had not committed any traffic violation, the officers did not allow Mr. Washington to leave. Instead, they began to administer field sobriety tests to him and subject him to continued harassment despite the fact that he was innocent of any crime.
In April, the ACLU of Northern California announced a billboard and radio ad campaign in English and Spanish to publicize its toll-free "Driving While Black or Brown" hotline, 1-877-DWB-STOP. (The Spanish Language

http://www.aclu.org/printer/printer.php

9/12/2006

ACLU

Page 3 of 3

hotline is 1-877-PARALOS.) Since the hotline's initiation in October 1998, more than 2000 persons have called to report their stories of discriminatory traffic stops.
The national ACLU has also launched a toll free telephone number -- 1-877-6-PROFILE -- that others can use to report incidents of DWB. More information on racial profiling can be found at: http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePracticeslist.cfm?c=118

© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 This is the Web site of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation.
Learn more about the distinction between these two components of the ACLU.
User Agreement | Privacy Statement | FAQs

http://www.aclu.org/printer/printer.php

9/12/2006

 
 U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 1 of 42

Docket as of June 16, 2003 9:24 pm

Web PACER (v2.3)

U.S. District Court
U.S. District for the Northern District of California (San Jose)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 99-CV-20895
Rodriguez, et al v. CA Highway Patrol, et al
Filed: 06/03/99 Assigned to: Judge Jeremy Fogel
Jury demand: Both Referred to: Judge Howard R. Lloyd
Demand: $0,000 Nature of Suit: 440 Lead Docket: None Jurisdiction: Federal Question Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

CURTIS V. RODRIGUEZ Plaintiff
[term 11/30/99]
JOSE LOPEZ Plaintiff

Alan L. Schlosser [term 11/30/99]
[COR LD NTC] Michelle Alexander
[term 11/30/99] [COR LD NTC] American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern CA Inc 1663 Mission St Ste 460 San Francisco, CA 94103 (415) 621-2493
Jon B. Streeter [term 11/30/99]
[COR LD NTC] Jon S. Tigar
[term 11/30/99] [COR LD NTC] Rebecca K. Sullivan
[term 11/30/99] [COR LD NTC] Keker & Van Nest LLP 710 Sansome St San Francisco, CA 94111-1704 (415) 391-5400
Alan L. Schlosser (See above) [COR LD NTC]

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Michelle Alexander (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Jon B. Streeter (See above) [COR LD NTC] Jon S. Tigar

MACARTHUR WASHINGTON Plaintiff
CALIFORNIA BRANCHES OF THE NAACP
Plaintiff
THE CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiff
v. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
defendant

(See above) [COR LD NTC]
Alan L. Schlosser (See above) [COR LD NTC] Michelle Alexander (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Jon B. Streeter (See above) [COR LD NTC] Jon S. Tigar (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Alan L. Schlosser (See above) [COR LD NTC] Michelle Alexander (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Jon B. Streeter (See above) [COR LD NTC] Jon S. Tigar (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Alan L. Schlosser (See above) [COR LD NTC] Michelle Alexander (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Jon B. Streeter (See above) [COR LD NTC] Jon S. Tigar (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Craig Modlin [term 07/30/02]

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

Page 2 of 42 10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

[term 07/30/02]
BUREAU OF NARCOTIC ENFORCEMENT defendant

[COR LD NTC] S. Michele Inan
[term 07/30/02] [COR LD NTC] Michelle Inan
[term 07/30/02] [COR LD NTC] CA Attorney General's Office 1515 Clay St 20th Flr Oakland, CA 94612-1413 510-622-2100
Tyler B. Pon, Deputy Atty. General
[term 07/30/02] (415) 703-1446 [COR LD NTC] Craig Modlin
[term 07/30/02] (415) 557-0907 [COR NTC] Bill Lockyer, CA Attorney General
[term 07/30/02] [COR LD NTC] CA State Attorney General's Office 455 Golden Gate Ave Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 (415) 703-5705
Tyler B. Pon, Deputy Atty. General
[term 07/30/02] [COR LD NTC] California State Attorney General Office 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 1100 San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 703-5934
Craig Modlin (See above) [COR LD NTC] S. Michele Inan (See above) [COR LD NTC] Michelle Inan (See above) [COR LD NTC]

Tyler B. Pon, Deputy Atty. General (See above) [COR LD NTC]

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

Page 3 of 42 10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

DWIGHT O. HELMICK, CA Highway Patrol Commissioner
defendant [term 07/30/02]
JOE DOANE, Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement Chief
defendant

Bill Lockyer, CA Attorney General (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Craig Modlin [term 07/30/02]
(See above) [COR LD NTC] S. Michele Inan
[term 07/30/02] (See above) [COR LD NTC] Michelle Inan
[term 07/30/02] (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Tyler B. Pon, Deputy Atty. General
[term 07/30/02] (See above) [COR LD NTC] Craig Modlin
[term 07/30/02] (See above) [COR NTC] Bill Lockyer, CA Attorney General
[term 07/30/02] (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Tyler B. Pon, Deputy Atty. General
[term 07/30/02] (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Craig Modlin (See above) [COR LD NTC] S. Michele Inan (See above) [COR LD NTC] Michelle Inan (See above)

[COR LD NTC]
Tyler B. Pon, Deputy Atty. General (See above) [COR LD NTC] Bill Lockyer, CA Attorney General (See above) [COR LD NTC]

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

Page 4 of 42 10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

LANCE SANDRI, Bureau Of Narcotics Enforcement Officer
defendant
MICHAEL J. ARPAIA, California Highway Patrol Officer
defendant
JOHN COLUMBET, Bureau Of Narcotics Enforcement Officer
defendant

Craig Modlin (See above) [COR LD NTC] S. Michele Inan (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Bill Lockyer, CA Attorney General (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Tyler B. Pon, Deputy Atty. General [COR LD NTC] 1515 Clay Street Suite 2000 Oakland, CA 94612 510-622-2121
Craig Modlin (See above) [COR LD NTC] S. Michele Inan (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Craig Modlin (See above) [COR NTC] Bill Lockyer, CA Attorney General (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Tyler B. Pon, Deputy Atty. General (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Tyler B. Pon, Deputy Atty.
General (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Craig Modlin (See above) [COR LD NTC] S. Michele Inan (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Bill Lockyer, CA Attorney General (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Tyler B. Pon, Deputy Atty.

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

Page 5 of 42 10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

FRANK ROMANO, California Highway Patrol Officer
defendant
STEVE C. WOISIN, California Highway Patrol Officer
defendant
JOSEPH NARDIL, California Highway Patrol Officer
defendant

General (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Craig Modlin (See above) [COR LD NTC] S. Michele Inan (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Bill Lockyer, CA Attorney General (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Tyler B. Pon, Deputy Atty. General (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Craig Modlin (See above) [COR LD NTC] S. Michele Inan (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Craig Modlin (See above) [COR NTC] Bill Lockyer, CA Attorney General (See above)
[COR LD NTC]
Tyler B. Pon, Deputy Atty. General (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Tyler B. Pon, Deputy Atty. General (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Craig Modlin (See above) [COR LD NTC] S. Michele Inan (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Craig Modlin (See above) [COR NTC] Bill Lockyer, CA Attorney General

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

Page 6 of 42 10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

ROBERT J. WOODS, Bureau Of Narcotics Enforcement Officer
defendant

(See above) [COR LD NTC]
Tyler B. Pon, Deputy Atty. General (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Tyler B. Pon, Deputy Atty. General (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Craig Modlin (See above) [COR LD NTC] S. Michele Inan (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Craig Modlin (See above) [COR NTC] Bill Lockyer, CA Attorney General (See above) [COR LD NTC]

========================
USA Intervenor

Tyler B. Pon, Deputy Atty. General (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Tyler B. Pon, Deputy Atty. General (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Jocelyn Burton [COR LD NTC] U S Attorney's Office Deputy Solicitor of Labor 450 Golden Gate Avenue P.O. Box 36055 San Francisco, CA 94102
David W. Shapiro [COR NTC] US Attorney's Office 450 Golden Gate Avenue P.O. Box 36055 San Francisco, CA 94102 415-436-7200

Page 7 of 42

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 8 of 42

DOCKET PROCEEDINGS

DATE #

DOCKET ENTRY

6/3/99 1 6/3/99 2
6/29/99 3 6/29/99 4 6/29/99 5 6/29/99 6 6/29/99 7 6/29/99 8 7/20/99 10
7/20/99 12 7/21/99 9 7/23/99 11

COMPLAINT Summons(es) issued; Fee status pd entered on 6/3/99 in the amount of $ 150.00 ( Receipt No. 3301521); jury demand [3:99-cv-02623] (ab)
ORDER RE COURT PROCEDURE and SCHEDULE (ADR Multi-Option) by Magistrate Judge James Larson : Proof of service to be filed by 7/19/99 ; counsels' case management statement to be filed by 9/27/99 ; initial case management conference will be held 10:30 10/6/99 . (cc: all counsel) [3:99-cv-02623] (ab)
RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and complaint executed upon defendant Joe Doane on 6/18/99 [3:99-cv-02623] (ab)
RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and complaint executed upon defendant Joe Doane on 6/18/99 [3:99-cv-02623] (ab)
RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and complaint executed upon defendant CA Highway Patrol on 6/17/99 [3:99-cv-02623] (ab)
RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and complaint executed upon defendant Bureau of Narcotic on 6/16/99 [3:99-cv-02623] (ab)
RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and complaint executed upon defendant CA Highway Patrol on 6/16/99 [3:99-cv-02623] (ab)
RETURN OF SERVICE of summons [3:99-cv-02623] (ab)
MOTION with memorandum in support before Magistrate Judge James Larson by defendant to change venue to San Jose Division with Notice set for 9/1/99 9 a.m. [3:99-cv-02623] (ab) [Entry date 07/23/99]
Request for reassignment to a U.S. District Judge for trial and disposition by defendant (ab) [Entry date 07/29/99]
CLERK'S NOTICE of impending reassignment to a United States District Judge [3:99-cv-02623] (ab) [Entry date 07/23/99]
ORDER by Assignment Committee Case reassigned to Judge Charles A. Legge referred to Judge Charles A. Legge the motion to change venue to San Jose Division [10-1] ( Date

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 9 of 42

8/9/99 13
8/17/99 14 8/26/99 15
9/9/99 16 9/10/99 17 9/16/99 18 9/22/99 19 10/7/99 20 10/7/99 21 10/7/99 -10/21/99 22 10/22/99 23 11/9/99 24

Entered: 7/26/99) (cc: all counsel) [3:99-cv-02623] (ab) [Entry date 07/26/99]
CLERK'S NOTICE re-setting hearing on motion to change venue to San Jose Division [10-1], Case Management Statement is due 8/20/99; and Case Management Conference on 8/27/99 at 9:30 a.m. [3:99-cv-02623] (tn) [Entry date 08/16/99]
LETTER from Rebecca K Sullivan, Esq., dated 8/16/99, to Court Clerk regarding defendant's motion to transfer and prepartion of proposed stipulation & order [3:99-cv-02623] (tn) [Entry date 08/19/99]
STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Charles A. Legge GRANTING motion to change venue to San Jose Division [10-1], therefore, this action is transferred to this Court's San Jose Division, and the defendants answer or other response to the complaint will be due 30 days after the date of the notice of transfer or the date of the notice of entry of this order, whichever comes first (Date Entered: 9/1/99) (cc: all counsel) [3:99-cv-02623] (tn) [Entry date 09/01/99] [Edit date 09/10/99]
ORDER by Assignment Committee Case reassigned to Judge Jeremy Fogel (cc: all counsel) [3:99-cv-02623] (tn) [Entry date 09/10/99]
NOTICE by Plaintiff of entry of stipulation and order [15-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (tn)
CLERK'S NOTICE Case Management Conference set for 10:30 11/1/99 ; [5:99-cv-20895] (cm) [Entry date 09/20/99]
NOTICE by Plaintiff Curtis V. Rodriguez [18-2] clerk notice [5:99-cv-20895] (ri) [Entry date 09/30/99]
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Jeremy Fogel by defendant to dismiss plaintiff's complaint with Notice set for 11/22/99 at 9:00 am. [5:99-cv-20895] (cm) [Entry date 10/08/99]
MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint [20-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (cm) [Entry date 10/08/99]
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant) re: motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint [20-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (cm) [Entry date 10/08/99]
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and PROPOSED ORDER filed. [5:99-cv-20895] (cm) [Entry date 10/22/99]
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and PROPOSED ORDER filed. [5:99-cv-20895] (cm)
MINUTES: ( C/R Peter Torreano) INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE HELD. Further case management conference set for 10:30 1/10/00 ; law and motion hearing will be held 9:00 12/6/99 ; [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 11/15/99]

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 10 of 42

11/12/99 25 11/30/99 27 12/1/99 26 12/28/99 28 12/29/99 29 12/29/99 30 12/29/99 -12/29/99 31 12/29/99 32 12/29/99 --

ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel adopting case management order Further case management conference set for 10:30 1/10/00 ; law and motion hearing will be held 9:00 12/6/99 ;
[24-1], adopting case management minutes [24-2] ( Date Entered: 11/15/99) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 11/15/99]
AMENDED COMPLAINT [1-1] by Plaintiff Curtis V. Rodriguez; jury demand terminating Plaintiff Curtis V. Rodriguez; adding Jose Lopez, MacArthur Washington, California Branches, The CA League [5:99-cv-20895] (cm) [Entry date 12/03/99]
ERRATA by Plaintiff Curtis V. Rodriguez [5:99-cv-20895] (cm) [Entry date 12/03/99]
CLERK'S NOTICE Case Management Conference set for 10:30 1/11/00 ; [5:99-cv-20895] (gm)
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Jeremy Fogel by defendant CA Highway Patrol, defendant Bureau of Narcotic, defendant Dwight O. Helmick, defendant Joe Doane to sever plaintiffs and/or strike class action allegations from the First amended ocmplaint with Notice set for 2/7/00 at 9:00 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/03/00]
MEMORANDUM by defendant CA Highway Patrol, defendant Bureau of Narcotic, defendant Dwight O. Helmick, defendant Joe Doane in support of motion to sever plaintiffs and/or strike class action allegations from the First amended ocmplaint [29-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/03/00]
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant CA Highway Patrol, defendant Bureau of Narcotic, defendant Dwight O. Helmick, defendant Joe Doane ) re: motion to sever plaintiffs and/or strike class action allegations from the First amended ocmplaint [29-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/03/00]
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Jeremy Fogel by defendant CA Highway Patrol, defendant Bureau of Narcotic, defendant Dwight O. Helmick, defendant Joe Doane to dismiss plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint with Notice set for 2/7/00 at 9:00 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/03/00]
MEMORANDUM by defendant CA Highway Patrol, defendant Bureau of Narcotic, defendant Dwight O. Helmick, defendant Joe Doane in support of motion to dismiss plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint [31-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/03/00]
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant CA Highway Patrol, defendant Bureau of Narcotic, defendant Dwight O. Helmick, defendant Joe Doane ) re: motion to dismiss plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint [31-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/03/00]

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 11 of 42

12/29/99 33
12/29/99 34 12/29/99 -1/14/00 35 1/14/00 36 1/21/00 37 1/26/00 -1/27/00 38 1/27/00 39 1/27/00 40
1/27/00 41 1/28/00 42 2/10/00 43 2/10/00 44

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Jeremy Fogel by defendant CA Highway Patrol, defendant Bureau of Narcotic, defendant Dwight O. Helmick, defendant Joe Doane to strike potions of pleading with Notice set for 2/7/00 at 9:00 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/03/00]
MEMORANDUM by defendant CA Highway Patrol, defendant Bureau of Narcotic, defendant Dwight O. Helmick, defendant Joe Doane in support of motion to strike potions of pleading [33-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/03/00]
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant CA Highway Patrol, defendant Bureau of Narcotic, defendant Dwight O. Helmick, defendant Joe Doane ) re: motion to strike potions of pleading [33-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/03/00]
MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion to dismiss plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint [31-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/19/00]
MINUTES: ( C/R Peter Torreano) INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE HELD. In court law and motion hearing will be held 10:00 2/18/00 ; [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/20/00]
ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel re [36-1], re [36-2] ( Date Entered: 1/25/00) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/25/00]
RECEIVED Proposed Order request for five additional pages ( Plaintiff) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/28/00]
MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion to dismiss plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint [31-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/01/00]
MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion to strike potions of pleading [33-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/01/00]
MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion to sever plaintiffs and/or strike class action allegations from the First amended ocmplaint [29-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/01/00]
STIPULATION and ORDER that plaintiffs' opposition to defendatns' motion to dismiss may be five pages overt the limit by Judge Jeremy Fogel : (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/01/00]
NOTICE by Plaintiff [41-1] order [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/01/00]
REPLY by defendant CA Highway Patrol, defendant Bureau of Narcotic, defendant Dwight O. Helmick, defendant Joe Doane re opposition memorandum [40-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/15/00]
REPLY by defendant CA Highway Patrol, defendant Bureau of

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 12 of 42

2/10/00 45 2/18/00 46 2/23/00 47 3/13/00 48
3/16/00 49 3/21/00 50 3/21/00 51 4/13/00 52 4/27/00 53 4/28/00 54 6/15/00 55 6/15/00 -6/15/00 56

Narcotic, defendant Dwight O. Helmick, defendant Joe Doane re opposition memorandum [39-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/15/00]
REPLY by defendant CA Highway Patrol, defendant Bureau of Narcotic, defendant Dwight O. Helmick, defendant Joe Doane re opposition memorandum [38-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/15/00]
MINUTES: ( C/R Peter Torreano) ( Hearing Date: 2/18/00) Case Management Conference set for 1:30 3/20/00 ; [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/23/00]
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 2/18/00 ( C/R: Peter Torreano) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/24/00]
ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel denying motion to strike potions of pleading [33-1], granting in part and denying in part motion to dismiss plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint [31-1], denying motion to sever plaintiffs and/or strike class action allegations from the First amended ocmplaint [29-1] ( Date Entered: 3/16/00) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/16/00]
SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and PROPOSED ORDER filed. [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/21/00]
MINUTES: ( C/R Peter Torreano) INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE HELD. Further case management conference set for 1:30 5/12/00 ; [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/24/00]
ORDER after CMC by Judge Jeremy Fogel ( Date Entered: 3/24/00) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/24/00]
ANSWER by defendant CA Highway Patrol, defendant Bureau of Narcotic, defendant Dwight O. Helmick, defendant Joe Doane to complaint [27-1]; jury demand [5:99-cv-20895] (gm)
STIPULATION continuing CMC and Filing date for simyltaneous briefs [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 05/02/00]
ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel Case Management Conference set for 10:30 6/26/00 ; ( Date Entered: 5/2/00) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 05/02/00]
MOTION before Judge Jeremy Fogel by Plaintiff for attorney Roy L. Austin, Jr. to appear pro hac vice . Fee status paid. [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/16/00]
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) re: motion for attorney Roy L. Austin, Jr. to appear pro hac vice . Fee status paid. [55-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/16/00]
MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in support of permitting discovery of defendants' statistical and other data prior to plaintffs' motion for class certification [5:99-cv-20895]

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 13 of 42

6/15/00 57 6/15/00 58 6/20/00 59 6/23/00 60 6/23/00 61
6/23/00 -6/26/00 62 6/27/00 63 6/27/00 -6/28/00 64 6/28/00 65 6/28/00 66
7/5/00 68

(gm) [Entry date 06/16/00]
DECLARATION by Rebecca K. Sullivan on behalf of Plaintiff in support of memorandum [56-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/16/00]
BRIEF FILED by Plaintiff addressing relevance of statistical data for pre-certification discovery [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/16/00]
ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel granting motion for attorney Roy L. Austin, Jr. to appear pro hac vice . Fee status paid. [55-1] ( Date Entered: 6/22/00) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/22/00]
EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Jeremy Fogel by Plaintiff for leave to file a Reply memorandum in support of permitting discovery of defendants' statistical and other data [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/26/00]
DECLARATION by Rebecca K. Sullivan on behalf of Plaintiff in support of motion for leave to file a Reply memorandum in support of permitting discovery of defendants' statistical and other data [60-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/26/00]
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) re: motion for leave to file a Reply memorandum in support of permitting discovery of defendants' statistical and other data [60-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/26/00]
NOTICE by Plaintiff [59-1] order [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/29/00]
STIPULATION to continue CMC to 7/24/00 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm)
[Entry date 06/29/00]
RECEIVED Stipulated Ex Parte request to Amend Complaint to name Doe defenants submitted by Plaintiff [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/29/00]
STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel : granting request to amend complaint to name Doe defendants (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/29/00]
STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel : Case Management Conference set for 10:30 7/24/00 ; (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/29/00]
ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel granting motion for leave to file a Reply memorandum in support of permitting discovery of defendants' statistical and other data [60-1] ( Date Entered: 6/29/00) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/29/00]
REPLY memo by Plaintiff in support of permitting discovery of dft's statistical and other data [5:99-cv-20895] (dhm) [Entry date 07/10/00]

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 14 of 42

7/6/00 67 7/7/00 -7/10/00 69 7/10/00 70 7/13/00 71 7/14/00 -7/14/00 72 7/24/00 74
7/25/00 73 7/25/00 75 7/26/00 76
7/26/00 77
7/26/00 78 8/2/00 79 8/7/00 80

NOTICE by Plaintiff [66-1] order [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/07/00]
RECEIVED Proposed Protective Order ( Plaintiff) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/10/00]
REPLY BRIEF addressing relevance of statistical data for precertification discovery by defendant [5:99-cv-20895] (gm)
STIPULATION and PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel : (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/11/00]
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [27-1] by Plaintiff; jury demand [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/14/00]
SUMMONS issued as to defendant CA Highway Patrol, defendant Bureau of Narcotic, defendant Dwight O. Helmick, defendant Joe Doane [5:99-cv-20895] (gm)
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and PROPOSED ORDER filed. [5:99-cv-20895] (gm)
MINUTES: ( C/R Perter Torrano) INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE HELD. In court law and motion hearing will be held 9:00 11/30/00 ; Further case management conference set for 1:30 10/23/00 ; [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/26/00]
NOTICE by Plaintiff [70-1] order [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/26/00]
ORDER after CMC by Judge Jeremy Fogel ( Date Entered: 7/26/00) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/26/00]
EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Jeremy Fogel by defendant CA Highway Patrol, defendant Bureau of Narcotic, defendant Dwight O. Helmick, defendant Joe Doane for leave to supplement oral argument and to request additional pre-certification discovery [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/31/00]
DECLARATION by Clare N. Frank on behalf of defendant CA Highway Patrol, defendant Bureau of Narcotic, defendant Dwight O. Helmick, defendant Joe Doane in support of motion for leave to supplement oral argument and to request additional pre-certification discovery [76-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/31/00]
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 7/24/00 ( C/R: Peter Torreano) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/31/00]
MEMORANDUM IN REPLY by Plaintiff to defendants' post-hearing brief regarding pre-certification discovery [5:99-cv-20895] (gm)
ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel granting motion for leave to supplement oral argument and to request additional pre-certification discovery [76-1] ( Date Entered: 8/8/00)

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 15 of 42

9/6/00 81 9/7/00 82
9/7/00 83 9/7/00 84 9/7/00 85 9/7/00 86 9/7/00 87 9/7/00 88 9/7/00 89 9/26/00 90 10/10/00 91 10/11/00 92 10/20/00 93 10/31/00 94
11/2/00 95 11/3/00 96

(cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 08/08/00]
STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel : In court certification hearing will be held 9:00 12/15/00 ; (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 09/08/00]
ANSWER by defendant CA Highway Patrol, defendant Bureau of Narcotic, defendant Dwight O. Helmick, defendant Joe Doane to complaint [71-1]; jury demand [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 09/08/00]
ANSWER by defendant Robert J. Woods to complaint [71-1]; jury demand [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 09/08/00]
ANSWER by defendant Joseph Nardil to complaint [71-1]; jury demand [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 09/08/00]
ANSWER by defendant Steve C. Woisin to complaint [71-1]; jury demand [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 09/08/00]
ANSWER by defendant Frank Romano to complaint [71-1]; jury demand [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 09/08/00]
ANSWER by defendant John Columbet to complaint [71-1]; jury demand [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 09/08/00]
ANSWER by defendant Michael J. Arpaia to complaint [71-1]; jury demand [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 09/08/00]
ANSWER by defendant Lance Sandri to complaint [71-1]; jury demand [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 09/08/00]
NOTICE by Plaintiff, [81-2] order [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 09/27/00]
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and PROPOSED ORDER filed. [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 10/18/00]
PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of statement case mangement [91-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 10/18/00]
SUPPLEMENTAL CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and PROPOSED ORDER filed. [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 10/23/00]
ORDER after CMC by Judge Jeremy Fogel; hearing on plaintiffs' motion for calss certification is set for 1/26/01 at 9:00 ( Date Entered: 11/6/00) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 11/06/00]
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 10/23/00 ( C/R: Peter Torreano) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 11/06/00]
MINUTES: ( C/R Peter Torreano) INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE HELD. In court law and motion hearing will be held 9:00 1/26/01 ; [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 11/07/00]

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 16 of 42

11/13/00 -11/15/00 97 11/16/00 98 11/30/00 99 12/14/00 100 12/15/00 101
12/15/00 102 12/15/00 103 12/15/00 104 12/15/00 105 12/15/00 -12/15/00 106

RECEIVED Proposed Order to continye class certification hearing ( defendant CA Highway Patrol, defendant Bureau of Narcotic, defendant Dwight O. Helmick, defendant Joe Doane ) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 11/16/00]
STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel : hearing for motion for class certification 2/9/01 at 9:00 (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 11/16/00]
DECLARATION by Joe R. Ortiz regarding CHP efforts to ocmply with Court Order dated 7/24/00 on behalf of defendant CA Highway Patrol, defendant Bureau of Narcotic, defendant Dwight O. Helmick, defendant Joe Doane [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 11/17/00]
NOTICE by defendant CA Highway Patrol [97-1] order [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/01/00]
STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel : granting additional pages in motion for class certification and opposition to motion for class certification (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/19/00]
MOTION with memorandum in support before Judge Jeremy Fogel by Plaintiff to unseal motion for class certification, to unseal this motion, and to declassify discovery materials with Notice set for 1/22/01 at 9:00 [5:99-cv-20895] (FILED UNDER SEAL) (gm) [Entry date 12/19/00] [Edit date 12/19/00]
DECLARATION by Michelle Alexander on behalf of Plaintiff in support of motion to unseal motion for class certification, to unseal this motion, and to declassify discovery materials [101-1] (FILED UNDER SEAL) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/19/00]
DECLARATION by Kenneth A. Sugarman on behalf of Plaintiff in support of motion to unseal motion for class certification, to unseal this motion, and to declassify discovery materials [101-1] (FILED UNDER SEAL) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/19/00]
MOTION with points and authorities filed before Judge Jeremy Fogel by Plaintiff for leave to file Third Amended Complaint with Notice set for 2/9/01 at 9:00 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/19/00]
DECLARATION by Rebecca K. Sullivan on behalf of Plaintiff in support of motion for leave to file Third Amended Complaint [104-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/19/00]
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) re: motion for leave to file Third Amended Complaint [104-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/19/00]
MOTION before Judge Jeremy Fogel by defendant Frank Romano, defendant Joseph Nardil for partial summary judgment with Notice set for 2/9/01 at 9:00

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 17 of 42

12/15/00 107 12/15/00 108
12/15/00 109 12/15/00 110 12/15/00 111 12/15/00 112 12/15/00 113 12/15/00 114 12/15/00 115 12/15/00 116 12/15/00 117 12/15/00 118 12/15/00 119 12/15/00 120

[5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/19/00]
NOTICE of hearing by defendant Frank Romano, defendant Joseph Nardil setting motion for partial summary judgment [106-1] ; hearing set for 9:00 2/9/01 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/19/00]
STATEMENT of facts by defendant Frank Romano, defendant Joseph Nardil in support of motion for partial summary judgment [106-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/19/00]
APPENDIX filed by defendant Frank Romano, defendant Joseph Nardil re motion for partial summary judgment [106-1]
[5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/19/00]
AFFIDAVIT of Tyler Pon regarding motion for partial summary judgment [106-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/19/00]
MOTION before Judge Jeremy Fogel by defendant Michael J. Arpaia for partial summary judgment with Notice set for 2/9/01 at 9:00 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/19/00]
NOTICE of hearing by defendant Michael J. Arpaia setting motion for partial summary judgment [111-1] ; hearing set for 9:00 2/9/01 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/19/00]
STATEMENT of facts by defendant Michael J. Arpaia in support of motion for partial summary judgment [111-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/19/00]
APPENDIX filed by defendant Michael J. Arpaia re motion for partial summary judgment [111-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/19/00]
AFFIDAVIT of Tyler Pon regarding motion for partial summary judgment [111-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/19/00]
MOTION before Judge Jeremy Fogel by defendant Steve C. Woisin, defendant Robert J. Woods for partial summary judgment with Notice set for 2/9/01 at 9:00 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/19/00]
NOTICE of hearing by defendant Steve C. Woisin, defendant Robert J. Woods setting motion for partial summary judgment [116-1] ; hearing set for 9:00 2/9/01 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/19/00]
STATEMENT of facts by defendant Steve C. Woisin, defendant Robert J. Woods in support of motion for partial summary judgment [116-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/19/00]
APPENDIX filed by defendant Steve C. Woisin, defendant Robert J. Woods re motion for partial summary judgment [116-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/19/00]
AFFIDAVIT of Tyler Pon regarding motion for partial summary judgment [116-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/19/00]

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 18 of 42

12/15/00 121
12/15/00 122
12/15/00 123 12/15/00 124 12/15/00 125 12/15/00 126 12/15/00 127 12/15/00 128 12/15/00 129 12/15/00 130 12/15/00 131 12/15/00 132 12/15/00 133

MOTION before Judge Jeremy Fogel by defendant Bureau of Narcotic, defendant Joe Doane, defendant Lance Sandri, defendant John Columbet for partial summary judgment with Notice set for 2/9/01 at 9:00 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/19/00]
NOTICE of hearing by defendant Bureau of Narcotic, defendant Joe Doane, defendant Lance Sandri, defendant John Columbet setting motion for partial summary judgment [121-1] ; hearing set for 9:00 2/9/01 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/19/00]
STATEMENT of facts by defendant Bureau of Narcotic, defendant Joe Doane, defendant Lance Sandri, defendant John Columbet in support of motion for partial summary judgment [121-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/19/00]
APPENDIX filed by defendant Bureau of Narcotic, defendant Joe Doane, defendant Lance Sandri, defendant John Columbet re motion for partial summary judgment [121-1]
[5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/19/00]
AFFIDAVIT of Tyler Pon regarding motion for partial summary judgment [121-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/19/00]
MOTION with memorandum in support before Judge Jeremy Fogel by Plaintiff to certify class action with Notice set for 2/9/01 at 9:00 (FILED UNDER SEAL) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/20/00]
DECLARATION by William T. Bielby on behalf of Plaintiff in support of motion to certify class action [126-1] (FILED UNDER SEAL) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/20/00]
DECLARATION by Rebecca K. Sullivan on behalf of Plaintiff in support of motion to certify class action [126-1] (FILED UNDER SEAL) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/20/00]
DECLARATION by Rebecca K. Sullivan on behalf of Plaintiff in support of motion to certify class action [126-1] (FILED UNDER SEAL) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/20/00]
DECLARATION by Jon B. Streeter on behalf of Plaintiff in support of motion to certify class action [126-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/20/00]
DECLARATION by Michelle Alexander on behalf of Plaintiff in support of motion to certify class action [126-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/20/00]
DECLARATION by Christa M. Anderson on behalf of Plaintiff in support of motion to certify class action [126-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/20/00]
APPENDIX filed by Plaintiff in support of motion to certify class action [126-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/20/00]

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 19 of 42

12/15/00 -12/15/00 -12/15/00 -12/15/00 -12/15/00 -12/15/00 -12/19/00 134 12/19/00 135
1/3/01 136 1/3/01 137 1/3/01 138 1/4/01 139

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) re: motion to certify class action [126-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm)
[Entry date 12/20/00]
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) re: motion to unseal motion for class certification, to unseal this motion, and to declassify discovery materials [101-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/01/01]
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant Steve C. Woisin, defendant Robert J. Woods ) re: motion for partial summary judgment [116-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/01/01]
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant Joe Doane, defendant Lance Sandri, defendant John Columbet ) re: motion for partial summary judgment [121-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/01/01]
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant Michael J. Arpaia ) re: motion for partial summary judgment [111-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/01/01]
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant Frank Romano, defendant Joseph Nardil ) re: motion for partial summary judgment [106-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/01/01]
ERRATA by defendant CA Highway Patrol, defendant Bureau of Narcotic, defendant Dwight O. Helmick, defendant Joe Doane to [121-1], to [116-1], to [111-1], to [106-1] (FILED UNDER SEAL) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/20/00]
DECLARATION by Clare N. Frank on behalf of defendant CA Highway Patrol, defendant Bureau of Narcotic, defendant Dwight O. Helmick, defendant Joe Doane in support of errata [134-1] (FILED UNDER SEAL) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/20/00]
CORRECTED VERSION MOTION with memorandum in support before Judge Jeremy Fogel by Plaintiff to certify class action with Notice set for 2/9/01 at 9:00 (FILED UNDER SEAL) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/04/01]
DECLARATION by Christa M. Anderson on behalf of Plaintiff in support of motion to certify class action [136-1] (FILED UNDER SEAL) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/04/01]
ERRATA by Plaintiff to [136-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/04/01]
STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel : setting hearing on motion to unseal motion for class certification, to unseal this motion, and to declassify discovery materials [101-1] 9:00 2/9/01 and modifying briefing schedule (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/05/01]

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 20 of 42

1/9/01 140 1/23/01 141 1/23/01 -1/24/01 142 1/26/01 143 1/26/01 144 1/26/01 145 1/26/01 146 1/26/01 147 1/26/01 148 1/26/01 149 1/26/01 150
1/26/01 151
1/26/01 152 1/26/01 --

PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant of order [139-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/10/01]
MOTION before Judge Jeremy Fogel by Plaintiff to exceed page limitation [5:99-cv-20895] (gm)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) re: motion to exceed page limitation [141-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm)
ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel granting motion to exceed page limitation [141-1] ( Date Entered: 1/25/01) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/25/01]
OPPOSITION by defendant to motion for leave to file Third Amended Complaint [104-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/29/01]
DECLARATION by Reginald Chappelle on behalf of defendant in support of opposition [143-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/29/01]
OBJECTIONS by defendant to evidence in motion to certify class action [136-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/29/01]
DECLARATION by Gary Dominguez on behalf of defendant in support of objection [145-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/29/01]
DECLARATION by Michael P. Ward on behalf of defendant in support of objection [145-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/29/01]
DECLARATION by Reginald Chapelle on behalf of defendant in support of objection [145-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/29/01]
MOTION before Judge Jeremy Fogel by Plaintiff to strike, statement [118-1] with Notice set for 2/9/01 at 9:00 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/29/01]
APPENDIX filed by Plaintiff in opposition to motion for partial summary judgment [121-1], in opposition to motion for partial summary judgment [116-1], in opposition to motion for partial summary judgment [111-1], in opposition to motion for partial summary judgment [106-1]
[5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/29/01]
DECLARATION by Arturo Hernandez in support of opposition to motions for partial summary judgment on behalf of Plaintiff
[5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/29/01]
DECLARATION by Curtis V. Rodriguez in support of opposition to motions for partial summary judgment on behalf of Plaintiff [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/29/01]
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) re: motion for partial summary judgment [121-1], re: motion for partial summary judgment [116-1], re: motion for partial summary judgment

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 21 of 42

1/26/01 169
1/26/01 170
1/26/01 171 1/26/01 172
1/26/01 173 1/26/01 174 2/2/01 153 2/2/01 154 2/2/01 155 2/2/01 156 2/2/01 157 2/2/01 -2/2/01 163

[111-1], re: motion for partial summary judgment [106-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/29/01]
MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion for partial summary judgment [121-1], motion for partial summary judgment [116-1], motion for partial summary judgment [111-1], motion for partial summary judgment [106-1] (FILED UNDER SEAL) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/27/01]
DECLARATION by Christa M. Anderson on behalf of Plaintiff in opposition to motion for partial summary judgment [121-1], in opposition to motion for partial summary judgment [116-1], in opposition to motion for partial summary judgment [111-1], in opposition to motion for partial summary judgment [106-1] (FILED UNDER SEAL) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/27/01]
DECLARATION by Jon B. Streeter on behalf of Plaintiff (FILED UNDER SEAL) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/27/01]
OPPOSITION by defendant to motion to unseal motion for class certification, to unseal this motion, and to declassify discovery materials [101-1], motion to certify class action [126-1] (FILED UNDER SEAL) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/27/01]
OPPOSITION by defendant to motion to certify class action [136-1] (FILED UNDER SEAL) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/27/01]
DECLARATION by Tyler B. Pon on behalf of defendant in support of opposition [173-1] (FILED UNDER SEAL) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/27/01]
REPLY by defendant re opposiiton to motions for partial summary judgment [150-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/06/01]
DECLARATION by Michael P. Ward, Ph.D. on behalf of defendant in support of reply [153-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/06/01]
OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to objection [145-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/06/01]
OBJECTIONS by Plaintiff to evidence submitted in opposition to documents [150-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/06/01]
MOTION before Judge Jeremy Fogel by Plaintiff to exceed page limitation [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/06/01]
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) re: motion to exceed page limitation [157-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/06/01]
REPLY MOTION by Plaintiff to defendants' opposition to motion to unseal motion for class certification, to unseal

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 22 of 42

2/2/01 164 2/2/01 165 2/2/01 166
2/2/01 167 2/2/01 168
2/5/01 175 2/5/01 176 2/12/01 158 2/15/01 159 3/1/01 160
3/1/01 161 3/1/01 162 3/1/01 177 3/26/01 178 4/20/01 179

this motion, and to declassify discovery materials (FILED UNDER SEAL) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/27/01]
DECLARATION by Roy L. Austin on behalf of Plaintiff in support of reply [163-1] (FILED UNDER SEAL) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/27/01]
REPLY by Plaintiff to defendants' opposition to motion for class certification (FILED UNDER SEAL) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/27/01]
DECLARATION by Jon B. Streeter in reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification on behalf of Plaintiff (FILED UNDER SEAL) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/27/01]
REPLY by Plaintiff in support of motion for leave to file Third Amended Complaint [104-1] (FILED UNDER SEAL) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/27/01]
DECLARATION by Robert A. Bonta on behalf of Plaintiff in support of motion for leave to file Third Amended Complaint [104-1] (FILED UNDER SEAL) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/27/01]
CORRECTED VERSION REPLY by Plaintiff to opposition [173-1] (FILED UNDER SEAL) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/27/01]
ERRATA by Plaintiff to [175-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/27/01]
MINUTES: Parties are scheduled a second private meditation session on 3/6/01 ( C/R Peter Torreano) ( Hearing Date: 2/9/01) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/13/01]
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 2/9/01 ( C/R: Peter Torreano) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/21/01]
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING FILED in support of defining class by division and bifurcation by Plaintiff [5:99-cv-20895] (gm)
[Entry date 03/05/01]
BRIEF FILED re bifurcation of title VI claim for injunctive relief by defendant [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/05/01]
BRIEF FILED regarding "415" and "estat" databases by defendant [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/05/01]
DECLARATION by Roy L. Austin on behalf of Plaintiff in support of brief [160-1] (FILED UNDER SEAL) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/27/01]
ORDER granting request to file documents under seal by Judge Jeremy Fogel ( Date Entered: 3/27/01) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/27/01]
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION by Jon B. Streeter on behalf of

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 23 of 42

5/11/01 180 5/11/01 181 5/25/01 182 5/25/01 183
6/1/01 184 6/1/01 185
6/1/01 -6/1/01 186 6/1/01 187 6/8/01 188 6/15/01 189 6/18/01 190 6/18/01 191

Plaintiff in support of motion to certify class action [136-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 04/26/01]
ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel granting motion for leave to file Third Amended Complaint [104-1] ( Date Entered: 5/15/01) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 05/15/01]
ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel granting motion to certify class action [136-1] ( Date Entered: 5/15/01) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 05/15/01]
MOTION with memorandum in support before Judge Jeremy Fogel by Plaintiff for leave to file Fourth Amended Complaint with Notice set for 7/9/01 at 9:00 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/04/01]
MOTION with memorandum in support before Judge Jeremy Fogel by Plaintiff Jose Lopez, Plaintiff MacArthur Washington, Plaintiff California Branches, Plaintiff The CA League to voluntarily dismiss First cause of action with Notice set for 7/9/01 at 9:00 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/04/01]
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Jeremy Fogel by Plaintiff for leave to to serve in excess of 25 interrogatories with Notice set for 7/9/01 at 9:00 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/06/01]
DECLARATION by Roy L. Austin on behalf of Plaintiff in support of motion for leave to to serve in excess of 25 interrogatories [184-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/06/01]
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) re: motion for leave to to serve in excess of 25 interrogatories [184-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/06/01]
PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of order received [0-0], declaration [185-1], motion for leave to to serve in excess of 25 interrogatories [184-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/06/01]
EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Jeremy Fogel by Plaintiff for a CMC [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/06/01]
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT [71-1] by Plaintiff; jury demand [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/11/01]
CLERK'S NOTICE Case Management Conference set for 10:30 7/9/01 ; [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/21/01]
MOTION before Mag. Judge Edward A. Infante by Plaintiff to compel production of documents with Notice set for 7/23/01 at 2:00 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/21/01]
STATEMENT of conditional nonopposition by defendant to motion for leave to file Fourth Amended Complaint [182-1]

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 24 of 42

6/18/01 192
6/18/01 -6/19/01 193 6/19/01 -6/19/01 -6/27/01 194 6/27/01 195 7/3/01 196
7/9/01 197 7/10/01 198 7/12/01 199 7/12/01 200
7/16/01 -7/16/01 201

[5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/21/01]
STATEMENT of conditional non-opposition by defendant to motion for leave to to serve in excess of 25 interrogatories [184-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/21/01]
RECEIVED Declaration of Roy L. Austin, submitted by Plaintiff re: [190-1] (FILED UNDER SEAL) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/21/01]
MOTION before Mag. Judge Edward A. Infante by Plaintiff to compel production of documents with Notice set for 7/23/01 at 2:00 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/27/01]
RECEIVED Declaration of Roy L. Austin, Jr. submitted by Plaintiff in support of: [193-1] (FILED UNDER SEAL) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/27/01]
RECEIVED Declaration of Roy L. Austin, Jr. submitted by Plaintiff in support of: [193-1] (FILED UNDER SEAL) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/27/01]
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and PROPOSED ORDER filed. [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/03/01]
RESPONSE by Plaintiff re statement [192-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/03/01]
OPPOSITION by defendant CA Highway Patrol to motion to compel production of documents [193-1], motion to compel production of documents [190-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/05/01]
MOTION before Mag. Judge Edward A. Infante by Plaintiff for order extending time to respond with Notice set for 7/23/01 at 2:00 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm)
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 7/9/01 ( C/R: Peter Torreano) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/11/01]
MINUTES: ( C/R Peter Torreano) ( Hearing Date: 7/9/01) Case Management Conference set for 10:30 10/8/01 ; [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/13/01]
SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION by defendant CA Highway Patrol to motion to compel production of documents [193-1], motion to compel production of documents [190-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/13/01]
RECEIVED Proposed Order and request to file under seal designation re: declaration to motion to compel ( Plaintiff) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/20/01]
REPLY BRIEF by Plaintiff in support of motion to compel production of documents [193-1], in support of motion to compel production of documents [190-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/20/01]

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 25 of 42

7/16/01 202 7/16/01 203 7/16/01 204 7/16/01 213 7/18/01 205 7/19/01 206 7/20/01 207 7/20/01 208 7/23/01 209 7/23/01 210 8/1/01 211
8/6/01 212

DECLARATION by Roy L. Austin, Jr. on behalf of Plaintiff in support of motion to compel production of documents [193-1], in support of motion to compel production of documents [190-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/20/01]
DECLARATION by Jon B. Streeter on behalf of Plaintiff in reply to opposition [200-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/20/01]
PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of declaration [202-1], order received [0-0] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/20/01]
DECLARATION by Roy L. Austin, Jr. on behalf of Plaintiff in support of motion to compel production of documents [193-1], in support of motion to compel production of documents [190-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 08/15/01]
AMENDED MINUTES: ( C/R Peter Torreano) ( Hearing Date: 7/9/01) Case Management Conference set for 10:30 10/15/01 ;
[5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/27/01]
LETTER dated 7/18/01 from S. Michele Inan [5:99-cv-20895]
(gm) [Entry date 07/27/01]
ORDER by Mag. Judge Edward A. Infante denying motion to compel production of documents [193-1] ( Date Entered: 7/27/01) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/27/01]
ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel granting motion for leave to to serve in excess of 25 interrogatories [184-1] ( Date Entered: 7/27/01) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/27/01]
MINUTES: ( C/R Melissa Peralta) ( Hearing Date: 7/23/01) granting motion to compel production of documents [193-1], granting motion to compel production of documents [190-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/31/01]
ORDER by Mag. Judge Edward A. Infante granting motion to compel production of documents [193-1] ( Date Entered: 7/31/01) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/31/01]
ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel granting in part and denying in part motion for partial summary judgment [121-1], granting in part and denying in part motion for partial summary judgment [116-1], granting in part and denying in part motion for partial summary judgment [111-1], granting in part and denying in part motion for partial summary judgment [106-1] ( Date Entered: 8/7/01) (cc: all counsel)
[5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 08/07/01]
ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel granting motion to voluntarily dismiss First cause of action [183-1], granting motion for leave to file Fourth Amended Complaint [182-1] ( Date Entered: 8/7/01) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895]

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 26 of 42

8/13/01 214 9/7/01 215 9/7/01 216 9/7/01 -9/21/01 217 10/10/01 218 10/10/01 219 10/10/01 --
10/29/01 220 10/29/01 221 11/1/01 222
11/7/01 -11/7/01 223

(gm) [Entry date 08/07/01]
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT [188-1] by Plaintiff; jury demand [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 08/16/01]
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Jeremy Fogel by defendant to dismiss the First cause of action of plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint with Notice set for 10/15/01 at 9:00 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 09/14/01]
MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion to dismiss the First cause of action of plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint [215-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 09/14/01]
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant) re: motion to dismiss the First cause of action of plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint [215-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 09/14/01]
STIPULATION to continue motion to dismiss and CMC to 10/22/01 at 9:00 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 09/24/01]
OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion to dismiss the First cause of action of plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint [215-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 10/12/01]
MOTION with memorandum in support before Judge Jeremy Fogel by Plaintiff for leave to to file Fifth Amended Complain with Notice set for 10/22/01 at 9:00 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 10/12/01]
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff Jose Lopez, Plaintiff MacArthur Washington, Plaintiff California Branches, Plaintiff The CA League ) re: motion for leave to to file Fifth Amended Complain [219-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 10/12/01]
OPPOSITION by defendant to motion for leave to to file Fifth Amended Complain [219-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 10/31/01]
REPLY by defendant re opposition [218-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 10/31/01]
MINUTES: ( C/R Peter Torreano) ( Hearing Date: 10/29/01) setting hearing on motion for leave to to file Fifth Amended Complain [219-1] 10:00 11/13/01, setting hearing on motion to dismiss the First cause of action of plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint [215-1] 10:00 11/13/01 Case Management Conference set for 10:00 11/13/01 ; [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 11/05/01]
RECEIVED Ex Parte request for additional time to file reply to plaintiffs' moiton for leave to file Fifth Amended Complaint submitted by Plaintiff [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 11/09/01]
REPLY by Plaintiff in support of Ex Parte document received [0-0] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 11/09/01]

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 27 of 42

11/8/01 224 11/14/01 225
11/19/01 226
11/21/01 227 11/21/01 232 11/26/01 228 11/29/01 229
12/5/01 230 12/7/01 231 12/17/01 235
12/19/01 233
12/19/01 234 12/21/01 236
12/21/01 -1/3/02 237

ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel extending timeto 11/13/01 at 10:00 to answer ( Date Entered: 11/9/01) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 11/09/01]
MINUTES: ( C/R Peter Torreano) ( Hearing Date: 11/13/01) letter briefs are due by 11/21/01 ; Case Management Conference set for 10:30 12/17/01 ; [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 11/16/01]
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 11/12/01 ( C/R: Peter Torreano) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 11/20/01]
STATEMENT of facts by Plaintiff re selection of mediator and swquence of bifurcated trail proceedings [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 11/26/01]
LETTER dated 11/21/01 from Tyler B. Pon [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/14/01]
NOTICE by defendant of change of address [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 11/27/01]
ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel granting motion for leave to to file Fifth Amended Complain [219-1] ( Date Entered: 11/30/01) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 11/30/01]
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT [214-1] by Plaintiff; jury demand [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/06/01]
BRIEF FILED re bifurcation by Plaintiff [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 12/10/01]
MINUTES: ( C/R P. Torreano) ( Hearing Date: 12/17/01) Case Management Conference set for 10:30 1/28/02 ;, Parties have agreed to the appointment of Judge Jensen to mediate the matter. [5:99-cv-20895] (cv) [Entry date 12/19/01]
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Jeremy Fogel by defendant CA Highway Patrol to dismiss 1st cause of action of 5th amended complaint with Notice set for 1/28/02 at 9:00 [5:99-cv-20895] (cv)
MEMORANDUM by defendant CA Highway Patrol in support of motion to dismiss 1st cause of action of 5th amended complaint [233-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (cv)
LETTER re: trail date dated 12/20/01 from The CA League, Lance Sandri, Michael J. Arpaia, John Columbet, Frank Romano, Steve C. Woisin, Joseph Nardil, Robert J. Woods [5:99-cv-20895] (lrd) [Entry date 12/28/01]
RECEIVED Plaintiff class proposed trial submitted by Plaintiff [5:99-cv-20895] (lrd) [Entry date 12/28/01]
MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion to dismiss 1st cause of action of 5th amended complaint [233-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/07/02]

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 28 of 42

1/4/02 238 1/9/02 --
1/10/02 239
1/14/02 240 1/18/02 241 1/22/02 242 1/28/02 243 2/4/02 244 2/4/02 245 2/4/02 -2/4/02 246
2/4/02 247
2/4/02 --
2/4/02 248

REPLY by Plaintiff re document received [0-0] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/07/02]
RECEIVED Proposed Order to continue hearing on moiton to dismiss to 2/11/02 ( Plaintiff) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/10/02]
STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel : setting hearing on motion to dismiss 1st cause of action of 5th amended complaint [233-1] 9:00 2/11/02 (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/11/02]
NOTICE by Plaintiff [239-1] order [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/15/02]
OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion to dismiss 1st cause of action of 5th amended complaint [233-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/23/02]
AMENDED TABLE OF AUTHORITIES by Plaintiff to opposition [241-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/23/02]
REPLY by defendant re opposition [241-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm)
MOTION before Mag. Judge Edward A. Infante by Plaintiff to exceed page limitation with Notice set for 3/11/02 at 11:00 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/05/02]
DECLARATION by Robert A. Bonta on behalf of Plaintiff in support of motion to exceed page limitation [244-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/05/02]
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) re: motion to exceed page limitation [244-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/05/02]
MOTION with points and authorities filed before Mag. Judge Edward A. Infante by Plaintiff to strike discovery responses and second motion to compel production of documents with Notice set for 3/11/02 at 10:00 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/05/02]
DECLARATION by Roy L. Austin, Jr. on behalf of Plaintiff in support of motion to strike discovery responses and second motion to compel production of documents [246-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/05/02]
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) re: motion to strike discovery responses and second motion to compel production of documents [246-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/05/02]
MOTION with points and authorities filed before Mag. Judge Edward A. Infante by Plaintiff to compel production of documents responsive to first request for production of documents with Notice set for 3/11/02 at 10:00 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/05/02]

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 29 of 42

2/4/02 249 2/4/02 -2/4/02 -2/4/02 --
2/8/02 250 2/8/02 251 2/8/02 252 2/8/02 253 2/8/02 254 2/13/02 255
2/14/02 256 2/14/02 257 2/14/02 258

DECLARATION by Rovert A. Bonta on behalf of Plaintiff in support of motion to compel production of documents responsive to first request for production of documents [248-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/05/02]
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) re: motion to compel production of documents responsive to first request for production of documents [248-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/05/02]
RECEIVED Request and Proposed Order to file exhibits H & J under seal submitted by Plaintiff [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/05/02]
RECEIVED Application and Porposed Order to file under seal exhibits P,Q, R, U, W & X attached to the declaration of Robert A. Bonta in support of plaintiffs' motion to compel production of documents responsive to first request for production of documents submitted by Plaintiff [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/05/02]
ORDER by Mag. Judge Edward A. Infante granting motion to exceed page limitation [244-1] ( Date Entered: 2/11/02) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/11/02]
ORDER by Mag. Judge Edward A. Infante granting application to file under seal exhibits P,Q,R,U,W, and X ( Date Entered: 2/11/02) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/11/02]
EXHIBITS P,Q,R,R,W & X to declaration [249-1] (FILED UNDER SEAL) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/11/02]
ORDER granting Request to file exhibits H & J under seal by Mag. Judge Edward A. Infante ( Date Entered: 2/11/02) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/11/02]
EXHIBITS H & J to declaration [247-1] (FILED UNDER SEAL) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/11/02]
MINUTES: ( C/R not reported) INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE HELD. Discovery cutoff 8/15/02 ; deadline for discovery from experts is 9/15/02 ; All motions will be filed by 10/21/02 ; Trial set for 11/12/02 ; All dismissal motions hearing date 9:00 3/11/02 ; [5:99-cv-20895] (gm)
MOTION with memorandum in support before Mag. Judge Edward A. Infante by defendant to quash or for protective order with Notice set for 3/25/02 at 10:00 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm)
DECLARATION by Robert Jimenez on behalf of defendant [5:99-cv-20895] (gm)
DECLARATION by S. Michele Inan on behalf of defendant [5:99-cv-20895] (gm)

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 30 of 42

2/14/02 -2/14/02 259 2/21/02 -2/21/02 260 2/25/02 261 3/8/02 262
3/11/02 263 3/11/02 264 3/11/02 -3/11/02 265 3/11/02 266 3/11/02 -3/12/02 267 3/12/02 268

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant) re: motion to quash or for protective order [256-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm)
CLERK'S NOTICE setting hearing on motion to quash or for protective order [256-1] 10:00 4/1/02 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/15/02]
RECEIVED Proposed Order to continue hearing on motion to strike and compel ( defendant) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/25/02]
PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant of order received [0-0] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/25/02]
MAIL [259-1] addressed to S. Michele Inan defendant returned from Post Office [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/26/02]
STIPULATION and ORDER by Mag. Judge Edward A. Infante : setting hearing on motion to compel production of documents responsive to first request for production of documents [248-1] 10:00 4/1/02, setting hearing on motion to strike discovery responses and second motion to compel production of documents [246-1] 10:00 4/1/02 (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/12/02]
DECLARATION by Joseph D. Keefe in support of defendant's Response to plaintiff Macarthur Washington's First set of Requests for production [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/13/02]
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION WITH MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES before Mag. Judge Edward A. Infante by defendant to intervene with Notice set for 4/1/02 at 10:00 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/14/02]
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Intervenor) re: motion to intervene [264-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/14/02]
MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in opposition to motion to quash or for protective order [256-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/14/02]
DECLARATION by Roy L. Austin, Jr. on behalf of Plaintiff in opposition to motion to quash or for protective order [256-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/14/02]
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) re: motion to quash or for protective order [256-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/14/02]
OPPOSITION by defendant to motion to compel production of documents responsive to first request for production of documents [248-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/15/02]
DECLARATION by S. Michele Inan on behalf of defendant in support of opposition [267-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/15/02]

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 31 of 42

3/12/02 269 3/12/02 270 3/15/02 271 3/15/02 272
3/18/02 274
3/18/02 276 3/18/02 277 3/18/02 278 3/18/02 273 3/18/02 275 3/19/02 279 3/21/02 280 3/25/02 281 3/29/02 --
3/29/02 282 3/29/02 283

OPPOSITION by defendant to motion to strike discovery responses and second motion to compel production of documents [246-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/15/02]
DECLARATION by S. Michele Inan on behalf of defendant in support of opposition [269-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/15/02]
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 3/14/02 ( C/R: Peter Torreano) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/18/02]
MINUTES: ( C/R Peter Torreano) ( Hearing Date: 3/14/02) that the motion to dismiss 1st cause of action of 5th amended complaint [233-1] is submitted [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/20/02]
REPLY MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in support of motion to strike discovery responses and second motion to compel production of documents [246-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/20/02]
REPLY DECLARATION by Roy L. Austin, Jr. on behalf of Plaintiff in support of memorandum [274-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/20/02]
PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of declaration [276-1], declaration [275-1], memorandum [274-1], reply [273-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/20/02]
REPLY by defendant CA Highway Patrol in support of motion to quash or for protective order [256-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/20/02]
REPLY by Plaintiff re opposition [267-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/25/02]
DECLARATION by Robert A. Bonta on behalf of Plaintiff in support of reply [273-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/25/02]
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 2/11/02 ( C/R: Peter Torreano) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/20/02]
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 12/17/01 ( C/R: Peter Torreano) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm)
OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion to intervene [264-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/28/02]
RECEIVED Application and Proposed Order to file under seal exhibits D,E,F,G,H, and I attached to the Amended Declaration of Robert A. Bonta ( Plaintiff) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 04/01/02]
AMENDED DECLARATION by Robert A. Bonta on behalf of Plaintiff re memorandum [274-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 04/01/02]
AMENDED DECLARATION by Roy L. Austin, Jr. on behalf of

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 32 of 42

3/29/02 284 4/1/02 285 4/1/02 286 4/1/02 287 4/2/02 288 4/3/02 289 4/4/02 290
4/4/02 291
4/8/02 292
4/8/02 293 4/8/02 294 4/8/02 -4/8/02 295

Plaintiff in support of memorandum [274-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 04/02/02]
AMENDED DECLARATION by Roy L. Austin, Jr. on behalf of Plaintiff in opposition to motion to intervene [264-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 04/02/02]
ORDER granting Application to file exhibits under seal by Mag. Judge Edward A. Infante ( Date Entered: 4/4/02) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 04/04/02]
EXHIBITS D through I to declaration [282-1] (FILED UNDER SEAL) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 04/04/02]
ORDER by Mag. Judge Edward A. Infante denying motion to quash or for protective order [256-1] ( Date Entered: 4/4/02) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 04/04/02]
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and PROPOSED ORDER filed. [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 04/04/02]
AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and PROPOSED ORDER filed. [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 04/04/02]
MINUTES: ( C/R Linda Monroe) ( Hearing Date: 4/1/02) granting motion to intervene [264-1], denying motion to quash or for protective order [256-1], granting in part and denying in part motion to compel production of documents responsive to first request for production of documents [248-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 04/08/02]
ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel denying motion to dismiss 1st cause of action of 5th amended complaint [233-1] ( Date Entered: 4/8/02) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 04/08/02]
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION WITH MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES before Mag. Judge Edward A. Infante by Plaintiff to compel Michael P. Ward's compliance with deposition subpoena with Notice set for 5/13/02 at 10:00 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 04/11/02]
DECLARATION by Robert A. Bonta on behalf of Plaintiff in support of motion to compel Michael P. Ward's compliance with deposition subpoena [292-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 04/11/02]
DECLARATION by Robert A. Bonta on behalf of Plaintiff in support of motion to compel Michael P. Ward's compliance with deposition subpoena [292-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 04/11/02]
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) re: motion to compel Michael P. Ward's compliance with deposition subpoena [292-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 04/11/02]
MOTION before Mag. Judge Edward A. Infante by Plaintiff for order to shorten time for hearing on motion to compel

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 33 of 42

4/8/02 -4/8/02 296
4/8/02 297 4/11/02 298 4/11/02 299
4/15/02 300 4/15/02 301 4/18/02 302 4/18/02 303 4/19/02 304 4/22/02 305

Michael P. Ward's compliance with deposition subpoena [292-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 04/11/02]
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) re: motion for order to shorten time for hearing on motion to compel Michael P. Ward's compliance with deposition subpoena [292-1] [295-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 04/11/02]
PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of order received [0-0], motion for order to shorten time for hearing on motion to compel Michael P. Ward's compliance with deposition subpoena [292-1] [295-1], order received [0-0], declaration [294-1], declaration [293-1], motion to compel Michael P. Ward's compliance with deposition subpoena [292-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 04/11/02]
MINUTES: ( C/R Peter Torreano) INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE HELD. Trial set for 1/21/03 ; [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 04/11/02]
ORDER by Mag. Judge Edward A. Infante granting in part and denying in part motion to compel production of documents responsive to first request for production of documents [248-1] ( Date Entered: 4/12/02) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 04/12/02]
ORDER by Mag. Judge Edward A. Infante granting in part and denying in part motion to intervene [264-1], granting in part and denying in part motion to strike discovery responses and second motion to compel production of documents [246-1] ( Date Entered: 4/12/02) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 04/12/02]
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Jeremy Fogel by defendant for order certifying orders for interlocutory appeal and request for stay with Notice set for 5/20/02 at 9:00 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 04/17/02]
MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion for order certifying orders for interlocutory appeal and request for stay [300-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 04/17/02]
ORDER by Mag. Judge Edward A. Infante denying motion for order to shorten time for hearing on motion to compel Michael P. Ward's compliance with deposition subpoena [292-1] [295-1] ( Date Entered: 4/22/02) (cc: all counsel)
[5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 04/22/02]
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 4/8/02 ( C/R: Peter Torreano) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 04/22/02]
ORDER by Mag. Judge Edward A. Infante granting motion to compel production of documents responsive to first request for production of documents [248-1] ( Date Entered: 4/22/02) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 04/22/02]
MEMORANDUM by defendant CA Highway Patrol in opposition to motion to compel Michael P. Ward's compliance with

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 34 of 42

4/29/02 306 4/29/02 307 4/29/02 308 5/2/02 309 5/6/02 310 5/7/02 -5/7/02 311 5/16/02 312 5/21/02 313 5/22/02 314 5/29/02 315 5/29/02 316 5/29/02 317

deposition subpoena [292-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 04/26/02]
REPLY by Plaintiff in support of motion to compel Michael P. Ward's compliance with deposition subpoena [292-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 04/30/02]
OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion for order certifying orders for interlocutory appeal and request for stay [300-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 04/30/02]
DECLARATION by Roy L. Austin on behalf of Plaintiff in support of opposition [307-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 04/30/02]
CLERK'S NOTICE setting hearing on motion for order certifying orders for interlocutory appeal and request for stay [300-1] 9:00 5/21/02 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 05/03/02]
REPLY BRIEF by defendant in support of motion for order certifying orders for interlocutory appeal and request for stay [300-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 05/07/02]
RECEIVED Decalration of Roy L. Austin, Jr. re production of mask 50 database and Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 05/08/02]
ORDER by Mag. Judge Edward A. Infante denying motion to compel Michael P. Ward's compliance with deposition subpoena [292-1] ( Date Entered: 5/8/02) (cc: all counsel)
[5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 05/08/02]
ORDER that the defendants will produce a copy of the Mask 50 database to plaintiffs' ocunsel no later than 5/10/02 by Mag. Judge Edward A. Infante ( Date Entered: 5/17/02) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 05/17/02]
MINUTES: ( C/R Lee-Anne Shrtridge) ( Hearing Date: 5/21/02) that the motion for order certifying orders for interlocutory appeal and request for stay [300-1] is submitted [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 05/22/02]
NOTICE by Plaintiff [312-1] order [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 05/23/02]
ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel denying motion for order certifying orders for interlocutory appeal and request for stay [300-1] ( Date Entered: 5/29/02) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm)
EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Jeremy Fogel by Plaintiff for order dismissing plaintiff class' claims for compensatory and punitive damages against defendants CHP and Helmick [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 05/31/02]
DECLARATION by Roy L. Austin, Jr. on behalf of Plaintiff in support of motion for order dismissing plaintiff class' claims for compensatory and punitive damages against

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 35 of 42

5/29/02 -5/31/02 318 5/31/02 319 5/31/02 320 5/31/02 321 5/31/02 322 5/31/02 323 5/31/02 324
5/31/02 -6/3/02 325 6/3/02 326 6/3/02 -6/3/02 --

defendants CHP and Helmick [316-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 05/31/02]
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) re: motion for order dismissing plaintiff class' claims for compensatory and punitive damages against defendants CHP and Helmick [316-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 05/31/02]
ANSWER by defendant CA Highway Patrol, defendant Dwight O. Helmick to complaint [230-1]; jury demand [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/04/02]
ANSWER by defendant CA Highway Patrol, defendant Michael J. Arpaia to complaint [230-1]; jury demand [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/04/02]
ANSWER by defendant CA Highway Patrol, defendant Joseph Nardil to complaint [230-1]; jury demand [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/04/02]
ANSWER by defendant CA Highway Patrol, defendant Robert J. Woods to complaint [230-1]; jury demand [5:99-cv-20895]
(gm) [Entry date 06/04/02]
ANSWER by defendant CA Highway Patrol, defendant Steve C. Woisin to complaint [230-1]; jury demand [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/04/02]
OPPOSITION by defendant to motion for order dismissing plaintiff class' claims for compensatory and punitive damages against defendants CHP and Helmick [316-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/04/02]
DECLARATION by Tyler Pon on behalf of defendant in opposition to motion for order dismissing plaintiff class' claims for compensatory and punitive damages against defendants CHP and Helmick [316-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/04/02]
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant) re: motion for order dismissing plaintiff class' claims for compensatory and punitive damages against defendants CHP and Helmick [316-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/04/02]
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Jeremy Fogel by defendant to set order of trial, to vacate bench trial with Notice set for 7/8/02 at 9:00 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/06/02]
DECLARATION by Amy Lo on behalf of defendant in support of motion to set order of trial [325-1], in support of motion to vacate bench trial [325-2] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/06/02]
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant) re: motion to set order of trial [325-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/06/02]
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( defendant) re: motion to vacate

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 36 of 42

6/5/02 327 6/13/02 -6/13/02 328 6/14/02 -6/17/02 329
6/19/02 330 6/19/02 331 6/24/02 332 6/27/02 333 6/28/02 334 6/28/02 335 7/8/02 336 7/12/02 337 7/16/02 338

bench trial [325-2] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/06/02]
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 4/1/02 ( C/R: Linda Monroe) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/10/02]
RECEIVED Proposed Order extending time to file opposition and reply briefs relating to motion to set order of trial, and in the alternative, to vacate bench trial ( Plaintiff) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/17/02]
DECLARATION by Robert A. Bonta on behalf of Plaintiff re order received [0-0] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/17/02]
Docket Modification (Administrative) to referring case for discovery to Judge Howard R. Lloyd [5:99-cv-20895] (gm)
ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel granting in part and denying in part motion for order dismissing plaintiff class' claims for compensatory and punitive damages against defendants CHP and Helmick [316-1] ( Date Entered: 6/18/02) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/18/02]
OPPOSITION by Plaintiff to motion to set order of trial [325-1], motion to vacate bench trial [325-2] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/20/02]
DECLARATION by Robert A. Bonta on behalf of Plaintiff in opposition to motion to set order of trial [325-1], in opposition to motion to vacate bench trial [325-2] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/20/02]
STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel : dismissing NAACP and LULAC with prejudice as party plaintiffs from the above-captioned lawsuit (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/25/02]
NOTICE by Plaintiff, [332-2] order [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/01/02]
REPLY BRIEF by defendant in support of motion to set order of trial [325-1], re motion to vacate bench trial [325-2] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/01/02]
STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel : extending time to file Opposition and Reply Briefs by 6/28/02 (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/01/02]
MINUTES: ( C/R Peter Torreano) ( Hearing Date: 7/8/02) that the motion to set order of trial [325-1] is submitted, that the motion to vacate bench trial [325-2] is submitted [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/09/02]
NOTICE by Plaintiff [335-1] order [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/16/02]
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 7/8/02 ( C/R: Peter Torreano) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/17/02]

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 37 of 42

7/16/02 339 7/16/02 340 7/16/02 -7/18/02 341 7/19/02 342 7/19/02 -7/23/02 343
7/23/02 344
7/23/02 -7/30/02 345 7/30/02 346
7/30/02 347

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION WITH MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES before Judge Howard R. Lloyd by Plaintiff to compel production of documents with Notice set for 8/20/02 at 10:00 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/17/02]
DECLARATION by Robert A. Bonta on behalf of Plaintiff in support of motion to compel production of documents [339-1]
[5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/17/02]
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) re: motion to compel production of documents [339-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm)
[Entry date 07/17/02]
ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel denying motion to vacate bench trial [325-2] ( Date Entered: 7/19/02) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/19/02]
MOTION before Judge Jeremy Fogel by defendant for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's 4/4/02, Order [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/23/02]
RECEIVED Motion for Reconsideration submitted by defendant [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/23/02]
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Howard R. Lloyd by Plaintiff to compel production of documents responsive to palintiffs' second and third requests for production of documents with Notice set for 8/27/02 at 10:00 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/26/02]
DECLARATION by Robert A. Bonta on behalf of Plaintiff in support of motion to compel production of documents responsive to palintiffs' second and third requests for production of documents [343-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/26/02]
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) re: motion to compel production of documents responsive to palintiffs' second and third requests for production of documents [343-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 07/26/02]
ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel dismissing plaintiffs' claims for money damages against defendants Dwight O. Helmick, party CA Highway Patrol ( Date Entered: 8/2/02) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 08/02/02]
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION WITH MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES before Judge Howard R. Lloyd by Plaintiff to compel further responses to plaintiffs' first set of interrogatories with Notice set for 9/3/02 at 10:00 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 08/02/02]
DECLARATION by Robert A. Bonta on behalf of Plaintiff in support of motion to compel further responses to plaintiffs' first set of interrogatories [346-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 08/02/02]

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 38 of 42

7/30/02 -7/30/02 348 7/30/02 349 7/30/02 --
7/30/02 -7/31/02 350 8/1/02 351 8/1/02 352 8/5/02 353 8/5/02 354 8/6/02 355 8/6/02 356 8/7/02 357 8/13/02 358

RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) re: motion to compel further responses to plaintiffs' first set of interrogatories [346-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 08/02/02]
MOTION before Judge Howard R. Lloyd by Plaintiff to exceed page limitation [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 08/02/02]
DECLARATION by Robert A. Bonta on behalf of Plaintiff in support of motion to exceed page limitation [348-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 08/02/02]
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) to file under seal exhibits L and O to declaration [347-1] of Robert A. Bonta in support of Motion to compel further responses to first set of interrogatories [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 08/02/02]
RECEIVED Exhibits L & O filed under seal submitted by Plaintiff re: [347-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 08/02/02]
ORDER by Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting motion to exceed page limitation [348-1] ( Date Entered: 8/2/02) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 08/02/02]
OPPOSITION by defendant to motion to compel production of documents responsive to palintiffs' second and third requests for production of documents [343-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 08/02/02]
DECLARATION by S. Michele Inan on behalf of defendant in support of opposition [351-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 08/02/02]
ORDER re: request to file documents under seal by Judge Howard R. Lloyd ( Date Entered: 8/8/02) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 08/08/02]
EXHIBITS L & O to declaration [347-1] (FILED UNDER SEAL) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 08/08/02]
REPLY BRIEF by Plaintiff re motion to compel production of documents [339-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 08/08/02]
OPPOSITION by defendant to motion to compel production of documents responsive to palintiffs' second and third requests for production of documents [343-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 08/08/02]
DECLARATION by S. Michele Inan on behalf of defendant in support of opposition [356-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 08/08/02]
REPLY by Plaintiff in support of motion to compel production of documents responsive to palintiffs' second and third requests for production of documents [343-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 08/16/02]

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 39 of 42

8/13/02 -8/14/02 359 8/14/02 360 8/15/02 361 8/20/02 362 8/20/02 363 8/20/02 364
8/20/02 365 8/26/02 366
8/29/02 -8/29/02 -9/9/02 367

RECEIVED Reply in support of Motion to Compel second and third requests for production of documents submitted by Plaintiff re: [343-1] (FILED UNDER SEAL) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 08/16/02]
OPPOSITION by defendant to motion to compel further responses to plaintiffs' first set of interrogatories [346-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 08/16/02]
DECLARATION by Craig Modlin on behalf of defendant in support of opposition [359-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 08/16/02]
ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel granting motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's 4/4/02, Order [342-1] ( Date Entered: 8/19/02) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 08/19/02]
REPLY by Plaintiff in support of motion to compel further responses to plaintiffs' first set of interrogatories [346-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 08/23/02]
REPLY DECLARATION by Robert A. Bonta on behalf of Plaintiff in support of motion to compel further responses to plaintiffs' first set of interrogatories [346-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 08/23/02]
MINUTES: ( C/R Peter Torreano) ( Hearing Date: 8/20/02) setting hearing on motion to compel production of documents responsive to palintiffs' second and third requests for production of documents [343-1] 10:00 9/3/02, setting hearing on motion to compel production of documents [339-1] 10:00 9/3/02 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 08/23/02]
ORDER by Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting in part and denying in part motion to compel production of documents [339-1] ( Date Entered: 8/29/02) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 08/29/02]
ORDER by Judge Howard R. Lloyd vacating hearing re motion to compel further responses to plaintiffs' first set of interrogatories [346-1], vacating hearing re motion to compel production of documents responsive to palintiffs' second and third requests for production of documents [343-1], vacating hearing re motion to compel production of documents [339-1] ( Date Entered: 8/29/02) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 08/29/02]
RECEIVED Joint Application and Proposed Order to file Stipulation re stay under seal ( Plaintiff) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 08/30/02]
RECEIVED Stipulation and Proposed Order staying action pending continued mediation (FILED UNDER SEAL) ( Plaintiff) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 08/30/02]
CLERK'S NOTICE Status conference set for 10:30 10/21/02 ;

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 40 of 42

9/9/02 368
9/9/02 369 10/11/02 370 10/23/02 371 1/8/03 372 1/14/03 373
2/7/03 374 2/14/03 375
2/27/03 376 2/27/03 377 2/27/03 378 2/27/03 -3/17/03 379 3/24/03 380 4/7/03 381

[5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 09/12/02]
JOINT APPLICATION AND ORDER to file Stipulation re stay under seal by Judge Jeremy Fogel ( Date Entered: 9/12/02) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 09/12/02]
STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel : staying action pending continued mediation (FILED UNDER SEAL) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 09/12/02]
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and PROPOSED ORDER filed. [5:99-cv-20895] (cv) [Entry date 10/17/02]
MINUTES: ( C/R Peter Torreano) ( Hearing Date: 10/21/02) Case Management Conference set for 10:30 1/13/03 ; [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 10/28/02]
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and PROPOSED ORDER filed. [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/13/03]
MINUTES: ( C/R Peter Torreano) INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE HELD. Further case management conference set for 9:00 2/13/03 ; [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 01/16/03]
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and PROPOSED ORDER filed. [5:99-cv-20895] (gm)
MINUTES: ( C/R Irene Rodriguez) INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE HELD. In court hearing will be held 9:00 4/7/03 for approval of settlement; [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 02/18/03]
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Jeremy Fogel by Plaintiff for approval of settlement agreement with Notice set for 4/7/03 at 10:30 [5:99-cv-20895] (gm)
MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in support of motion for approval of settlement agreement [376-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm)
DECLARATION by Robert A. Bonta on behalf of Plaintiff in support of motion for approval of settlement agreement [376-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm)
RECEIVED Proposed Order ( Plaintiff) re: motion for approval of settlement agreement [376-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm)
RESPONSE and JOINDER by defendant to motion for approval of settlement agreement [376-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/18/03]
REPLY MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in support of motion for approval of settlement agreement [376-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 03/25/03]
MINUTES: ( C/R Peter Torreano) ( Hearing Date: 4/7/03) that the motion for approval of settlement agreement [376-1] is submitted [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 04/08/03]

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 41 of 42

4/9/03 382 4/17/03 383 4/21/03 384 5/5/03 385 5/30/03 386 6/3/03 387 6/3/03 388 6/12/03 389

ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel granting motion for preliminary approval of settlement agreement and approval of class notice [376-1] ( Date Entered: 4/9/03) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm)
RESPONSE by defendant re order [382-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 04/21/03]
ORDER re publication of class notice by Judge Jeremy Fogel granting motion for approval of settlement agreement [376-1] ( Date Entered: 4/23/03) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 04/23/03]
TERMS and Conditions of Settlement Agreement by defendant, Plaintiff, defendant [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 05/06/03]
DECLARATION by Robert A. Bonta regarding Plaintiffs' compliance with class notice requirements on behalf of Plaintiff [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/02/03]
MINUTES: ( C/R Peter Torreano) ( Hearing Date: 6/2/03 before Judge Jeremy Fogel) granting motion for approval of settlement agreement [376-1] [5:99-cv-20895] (scu)
ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel dismissing action with prejudice . ( Date Entered: 6/4/03) (cc: all counsel) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/04/03]
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT filed; Date of proceedings: 6/3/03 ( C/R: Peter Torreano) [5:99-cv-20895] (gm) [Entry date 06/16/03]

Case Flags: TERMED
REFER

END OF DOCKET: 5:99cv20895

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

PACER Login: Description: Billable Pages:

10/25/2005 15:25:01

hs0328

Client Code:

docket report Search Criteria:

45

Cost:

5:99cv20895 3.60

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

U.S. District Court Web PACER(v2.3) Docket Report

Page 42 of 42

http://pacer.cand.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/pacer740.pl

10/25/2005

 
 1

NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

2 TO: All Latinos and African Americans who are presently and in the future will be stopped while driving by the California Highway Patrol (“CHP”) and then detained, interrogated, or
3 subjected to a search (either of person or vehicle) on any public thoroughfare within the jurisdiction of CHP’s Central and Coastal Divisions.1
4 This Notice is to inform you about a proposed settlement of a lawsuit called Curtis V. Rodriguez,
5 et al. v. California Highway Patrol, et al., Case Number C-99-20895-JF/HRL (Northern District Federal Court).
6 A hearing regarding a proposed settlement of this class action will be held on June 2, 2003 at
7 11:00 a.m. before the Hon. Jeremy Fogel at the United States District Courthouse, Northern District Of California, San Jose Division, 280 S. First Street, Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose,
8 CA 95113-3008. The hearing will be held to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate.
9 If you are a member of the plaintiff class, you should read this notice carefully because it will
10 affect your rights.

11 BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

12 A lawsuit was filed on June 3, 1999 in federal court in San Jose in response to claims by three individual motorists (two Latino and one African-American) that they had been stopped and
13 searched on the basis of “racial profiling” by the California Highway Patrol in the Los Banos area proximate to the intersection of Interstate 5 and Highway 152. The lawsuit claimed that the
14 California Highway Patrol engaged in a policy, pattern, and practice of targeting Latino and African-American motorists for traffic stops, detentions, interrogations and searches.
15 Defendants have denied the claims made against them. The lawsuit was certified as a “class action” on behalf of all Latinos and African Americans who are presently and in the future will
16 be stopped while driving by the California Highway Patrol (“CHP”) and then detained, interrogated, or subjected to a search (either of person or vehicle) on any public thoroughfare
17 within the jurisdiction of CHP’s Central and Coastal Divisions.

18 Since the filing of the suit, the Court has preliminarily approved a settlement negotiated by the parties.
19 THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
20 The parties have agreed to a settlement which provides, in summary, that:
21 Prohibition of Racial Profiling and Racial Discrimination: The CHP affirms that: “CHP
22 officers shall not engage in racial profiling or racial discrimination of any kind. Racial profiling
and racial discrimination of any kind are prohibited by the department and will not be tolerated.” 23

24

CHP Policy Regarding Traffic Enforcement Stops: The CHP affirms that: “Officers shall not stop individuals for the primary purpose of drug interdiction unless they have probable cause or

25 reasonable suspic ion of drug-related activity. The officer must have specific and articulable facts to support his/her determination; a mere suspicion or ‘hunch’ is not sufficient. After a stop has

26 1 The Central and Coastal Divisions include the following major cities: Central: Bakersfield,
27 Buttonwillow, Fresno, Madera, Merced, Modesto, Porterville, Sonora, Fort Tejon, Hanford, Mariposa, Los Banos, Visalia, and Coalinga. Coastal: Santa Cruz, Monterey, Templeton, Santa
28 Maria, Santa Barbara, Hollister-Gilroy, King City, San Luis Obispo, Buelton, and Ventura.

310293.02

NOTICE TO CLASS OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT CASE NO. C 99-20895-JF/HRL

1 been made, an officer shall not extend the stop beyond the time necessary to address the traffic violation unless an officer has reasonable suspicion or probably cause of criminal activity.”

2

Extension of Consent Search Moratorium: On April 19, 2001, the CHP issued a six- month 3 moratorium on consent searches, pending further review, study and evaluation. The moratorium

4

on consent searches has subsequently been extended through July 31, 2003. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the CHP agrees to continue its moratorium on consent searches for

5 three years from the date the Settlement Agreement goes into effect.

6 Data Collection, Documentation and Review: The CHP will collect and make available meaningful data regarding its contacts with the motoring public for a period of three years from

7 the date the Settlement Agreement goes into effect. This data will be in automated form and will

be made available to plaintiffs’ counsel on a semi-annual basis. The CHP will provide data for 8 all Departmental Narcotic Detection Canine Program Officers and identify these officers by

9

name and identification number. The CHP will create a new “racial profiling” category for citizen’s complaints.

10 Training: The CHP will train every officer regarding the terms of the settlement agreement.
11 The CHP will train every officer in the racial profiling curriculum provided by the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards & Training (P.O.S.T.).
12 Auditor: The CHP will create an auditor position within the CHP reporting directly to the CHP
13 Commissioner. The Auditor will review data collected by the CHP to identify and analyze trends. The Auditor will ensure the quality and accuracy of the data collected. The Auditor will
14 provide appropriate input for training regarding data collection to CHP officers and supervisors.

15 Verification: Plaintiffs’ counsel may call meetings with the CHP to discuss the CHP’s efforts to
16 implement the terms of the settlement agreement. Plaintiffs’ counsel will have access to CHP policy manuals and training materials. Plaintiffs’ counsel will have access to the identity,
17 qualifications and job description of the Internal Auditor. Plaintiffs’ counsel will have access to automated data regarding the CHP’s contacts with the motoring public (ESTAT) every six
18 months.

19 Settlement Payment : In full settlement of all of plaintiffs' claims, the CHP will pay $875,000 as

20

attorneys' fees and costs. The class certified by the court has no damages claims. By separate agreement between the three individual motorist-plaintiffs and plaintiffs' attorneys, each

21 individual plaintiff will receive $50,000 (or a total of $150,000) from the settlement payment. The CHP is not party to this separate agreement and is making no payments to the individual

22 motorist-plaintiffs.

23 TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT:

24 Any class member who objects to the terms of the proposed settlement may appear personally or

25

through counsel at the hearing and object to their approval. All objections must be made in writing and sent by first class mail and received by the Clerk not later than May 27, 2003. The

26 envelope should be addressed as follows:

27 CLERK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 280 South 1st Street
28 San Jose, CA 95113

310293.02

2
NOTICE TO CLASS OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT CASE NO. C 99-20895-JF HRL

1 Re: Rodriguez, et al. v. California Highway Patrol, et al. Case No. C-99-20895-JF/HRL
2 IF YOU DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT YOU NEED NOT APPEAR.
3 4 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION : 5 This is a summary. If you want a copy of the full agreement, contact: 6 Alan Schlosser
ACLU Foundation of Northern California 7 1663 Mission Street, Suite 460
San Francisco, CA 94103 8 (415) 621-2493 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

310293.02

3
NOTICE TO CLASS OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT CASE NO. C 99-20895-JF HRL

 
 DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
The California Highway Patrol is a law enforcement and traffic safety agency reporting to Business, Transportation and Housing Agency Secretary Maria Contreras-Sweet and Governor Gray Davis.

CONTACT:

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS (916) 657-7202 Tom Marshall (916) 657-8639 - FAX

February 27, 2003

03-06
CHP & ACLU SETTLE THREE-YEAR RACIAL PROFILING DISPUTE

(SACRAMENTO) – The California Highway Patrol (CHP) and The American Civil Liberties Union

(ACLU) have reached an out-of-court settlement of the Rodriguez vs. CHP lawsuit. The class action

federal lawsuit was based on three traffic stops involving vehicle searches.

The settlement provides that the CHP pays no damages and states that the CHP does not admit

to any violations or failure to comply with any federal or state laws relevant to racial profiling. It is

further agreed that this settlement is not to be construed as an admission of wrong doing by the CHP.

“Nothing during this three-year litigation established a pattern or practice of racial profiling by the

CHP,” stated CHP Commissioner D.O. “Spike” Helmick. “The CHP reaffirms its commitment to

provide service to the public and treat people respectfully and fairly,” added Helmick.

The CHP has voluntarily kept ethnicity data on its contacts with the public and will continue to

do so for an additional three years, as part of this settlement. The CHP will continue to conduct

searches of motorists or vehicles based on probable cause without regard to the race of the individuals

being searched. CHP management directs that the moratorium on consent searches will be extended

an additional three years.

CHP data indicates that of 3.2 million public contacts, only two percent result in searches. Of

those searches, 99.9 percent are legally required for inventory during vehicle impoundment or arrest of

occupants.

The CHP agrees to reaffirm and clarify its existing policies against racial profiling. The CHP

further agrees to provide additional training on racial profiling for all officers.

As a result of this settlement, the parties agree that plaintiffs will receive no damages. The CHP will pay $875,000 in plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and other court costs.
# # #

 
 ACLU of Northern California : In Landmark Racial Profiling Settlement, California High... Page 1 of 2
In Landmark Racial Profiling Settlement, California Highway Patrol Agrees to Major Reforms
Curtis V. Rodriguez, et al. v. California Highway Patrol, et al.
For Immediate Release: February 27, 2003
SAN FRANCISCO - The California Highway Patrol (CHP) has agreed to adopt sweeping reforms – including a ban on consent searches and restrictions on drug-related pretext stops -that are intended to end the practice of racial profiling on California’s highways, the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California announced today. The reforms could have a broad impact on law enforcement agencies throughout the state.
“We believe this important agreement is a win-win proposition for the people of this state and for law enforcement - it protects motorists from racial discrimination and, if vigorously implemented, will increase public confidence and trust in the CHP,” said Alan Schlosser, Legal Director of the ACLU of Northern California. “It goes beyond a ban on racial profiling to prohibiting specific law enforcement techniques and practices that the ACLU believes have resulted in the widespread fear that Driving While Black or Brown can be risky business in California.”
The settlement establishes the CHP as the first law enforcement agency in the nation to prohibit their officers from asking motorists for consent to search their cars or persons. The ACLU contended in its lawsuit that giving officers the discretion to seek consent when they did not have probable cause to search resulted in a disproportionate number of motorists of color being subjected to extensive searches, and was a critical component of racial profiling.
In the course of the lawsuit, it was established that Latinos were approximately three times as likely to be searched by CHP officers than whites in the Central and Coastal Divisions, and African-Americans were approximately twice as likely to be searched in those divisions. In the wake of these findings, CHP Commissioner Spike Helmick commendably ordered a moratorium on consent searches in 2001. The settlement extends this prohibition until 2006.
The settlement agreement also bans drug-related pretext stops, which means that CHP officers cannot use minor traffic violations as an excuse for stopping and searching a car for illegal drugs unless the officers have probable cause or reasonable suspicion of drug activity.
In addition, the CHP will create a new high-level position of Auditor who will focus on racial profiling and report directly to the CHP Commissioner to promote accountability and to assure the implementation of the reforms.
Jon Streeter, partner at the San Francisco law firm of Keker &Van Nest and the lead counsel for the ACLU in this case, applauded the efforts of the CHP in reaching this landmark agreement. “CHP Commissioner Spike Helmick deserves tremendous credit for making this settlement possible. Commissioner Helmick and his top deputies convinced us that they recognized a problem and were committed to making significant changes to eradicate the egregious practice of racial profiling.”
Streeter added: “These guys rolled up their sleeves and sat down with us to discuss meaningful solutions. That took guts and integrity. Implementing the settlement will require careful attention and monitoring as we move forward, and the CHP’s leadership has shown a willingness to do just that.”
The settlement ends a lawsuit filed on June 3, 1999 on behalf of three victims of racial profiling and a class of African American and Latino motorists who have been or will be stopped, detained, interrogated, and/or searched by CHP officers within the Coastal and Central CHP Divisions.
The lawsuit sought to end law enforcement practices and training, associated with the so-called “war on drugs” that allowed and even encouraged stereotyping of Latino and African American motorists as potential drug dealers and criminals, and resulted in a disproportionate number of black and brown motorists being subjected to prolonged detentions and intrusive and humiliating searches.
The settlement, which will effect CHP policies and practices statewide, was filed today in U.S. District Court (San Jose) and includes the following:
A prohibition against CHP officers engaging in racial profiling and racial discrimination of any kind; · A ban on consent searches through 2006; Comprehensive data collection for each stop including race, the reason for the stop, whether a search was conducted and the legal basis for the search, and the result of the stop and search; Creation of an Auditor position to help implement the Settlement and who will report directly to the CHP Commissioner. The Auditor’s duties will include reviewing and analyzing data collected by its’ officers; evaluating citizens’ complaints; and providing appropriate input for training regarding data collection to CHP officers and supervisors; and Creation of a category of citizens’ complaints specifically covering racial profiling.
“Today’s settlement marks a turning point in the fight against racial profiling in California,” said Curtis Rodriguez, a plaintiff in the case. “This settlement is important because it will make our highways safer for everyone; Latino and African American motorists will no longer have to live in fear of being stopped and searched simply because of the color of their skin.”
Mr. Rodriguez, a Latino attorney from San Jose, was illegally stopped and searched by the CHP on June 6, 1998, just minutes after he witnessed a
http://www.aclunc.org/news/press_releases/in_landmark_racial_profiling_settlement,_califo... 1/8/2007

ACLU of Northern California : In Landmark Racial Profiling Settlement, California High... Page 2 of 2
number of CHP stops of Latino drivers within a 10-mile stretch of Highway 152, an area commonly known as Pacheco Pass. "The CHP is the state’s leading law enforcement agency and the reforms agreed to by the CHP should serve as model policy for local police departments throughout the state,” said Mark Schlosberg, Police Practices Policy Director of the ACLU of Northern California. “Already data collected locally – even by police departments in diverse and progressive cities such as San Francisco and Sacramento – demonstrates large disparities in the rates at which African American and Latino motorists are stopped and searched. Local police departments should address these disparities by adopting policies like those in this Settlement, including the prohibition on consent searches and limits on pretext stops.” In full settlement of plaintiff’s claims and for attorney’s fees and costs, the CHP will pay $875,000. send to a friend print
http://www.aclunc.org/news/press_releases/in_landmark_racial_profiling_settlement,_califo... 1/8/2007