Trucker awarded $500K after being unlawfully detained

A trucker who was unlawfully detained while attempting to make a delivery in 2019 has been awarded $500,000 in damages.

The arrest occurred on Feb. 6, 2019, as Tommy Franks was delivering a load to the WinCo Foods grocery store in Apple Valley, Calif. After parking his truck in the loading dock, Franks walked to the front of the store to notify management of the delivery. According to court documents, the trucker also purchased some muffins from the store before heading back to his truck.

After leaving the store with muffins and a clipboard in hand, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department deputies approached Franks in their patrol car. Franks says that officers told him he was loitering and asked for identification, which he refused.

Jerry Steering, the attorney representing Franks, said his client was merely walking back to his truck and was not loitering in any fashion. Steering said that Franks verbally protested his detention, as well as the officer’s demands to produce identification without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, multiple times throughout the course of the interaction.

In the initial filing, Steering stated that officers knew Franks was delivering goods, as they could see the manifest for the delivery on his clipboard.

Furthermore, the name of Franks’ employer could be clearly seen on the manifest, which matched the logo on the side of his truck.

“It would be patently obvious to anyone that plaintiff was working his job and had a legitimate reason to be walking behind the store to perform his job,” Steering said in his original complaint to the court.

At that point, Franks was handcuffed and placed under arrest for refusing to identify himself. The initial complaint alleges the handcuffs “were ratcheted down so tightly that (Franks’) wrists were in excruciating pain” and argues the use of excessive force “was done in retaliation” to Franks’ verbal protests.

According to Steering, his client asked three times for a supervisor to come to the scene of the incident and waited in the back of the patrol car for 20-30 minutes for a sergeant to arrive. Franks claims that while pleading his case, the supervisor called him an “idiot” and stated that he would back up any of his subordinate officers.

While waiting in the back of the patrol car, Steering said his client asked the arresting officer “is it difficult to breathe with your head that far up your ass?” Steering said the officer did not respond.

Following the incident, Franks was taken to jail where he stayed overnight and was released the following morning. Franks was criminally prosecuted for resisting, delaying or obstructing a peace officer in the lawful performance of his or her duties – a misdemeanor in California – in June 2019. On Sept. 27, 2019, the court dismissed the case due to insufficient evidence.

On Feb. 1, a federal jury awarded Franks $375,000 for exemplary damages stemming from his wrongful arrest, with the potential for more damages.

On Feb. 7, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors approved the settlement and awarded Franks an additional $125,000 in punitive damages. Steering told Land Line the county’s initial settlement offer was for $5,000.

Steering said he believes the jury in the trial was the most “pro-police” jury he’s had in 39 years, and that the large settlement – the largest in the county he said he’s aware of since 2013 – sent a message.

The court filing also accused the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department of failing to train their officers:

• Not to handcuff people so tightly as to cause injury.
• That it is not a crime in California for a person to refuse to identify themselves to a peace officer.
• Retaliation against civilians for their verbal protest of police actions is proscribed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and cannot be criminalized.
• Failure to immediately comply with police orders is not a violation of California Penal Code 148(a)(1).

Currently, California does not have “stop and identify” statutes that require individuals to show identification to law enforcement officers in any instance. Because of this, officers are unable to legally penalize citizens for failing to produce ID with the absence of criminal suspicion.

However, Steering says this hasn’t deterred officers from needlessly charging individuals with resisting, delaying, or obstructing. He contends that was the case with his client, who he says “failed the attitude test” and was subsequently harassed by the police.

For Steering, he said he believes the case simply boiled down to two things: Franks protesting to protect his rights and the officers having a mistaken belief that it was a crime to not identify yourself.    

Both the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors and the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department declined Land Line’s request to comment on the case or verdict. LL