Sacramento police illegally searched homes, cellphones, vehicles, audit finds

Nineteen drivers stopped by Sacramento Police Department officers during a two-year span for tinted windows were either Black or Latino, according to a city task force’s new audit.

The 190-page report, released by the city’s Office of Public Safety Accountability, will be discussed Tuesday by the Sacramento City Council. The audit found several instances in which Sacramento police appear to violate the Fourth Amendment and act with racial bias.

In the majority of the 19 window stops included in the report between June 2020 and June 2022, the officer did not ask about the window tint — though the report did not give a specific number. The audit contends the stops appeared to be a “pretext to initiate an unrelated investigation.”

“These interactions are intense and can become needlessly adversarial,” the report said. “Officers question drivers stopped for window-tint violations about their criminal history, specifically asking if the individual has ever been in jail, arrested, or whether they are on probation or parole even though the citizens were only being stopped for minor traffic violations.”

During the two-year period, the department issued 445 citations for illegal window tint, Police Chief Kathy Lester said in her response to the audit.

In one instance, an officer pulled over a Latino female driver for tinted windows and asked to see her ID, which she went to get from her purse. The officer then “quickly snatched” the purse from her.

“The driver, still holding on to her purse, struggled to retrieve her purse from the officer,” the report said. “After a short struggle over the purse, the officer ultimately arrested the driver for resisting arrest. The officer then searched her purse and her car and found nothing.

“The woman had never been arrested before and did not have a criminal record. The officer had no legal authority to reach into the driver’s car or search the driver’s purse.”

In a response to the report, Lester wrote, “the reason for the stop was legal. SPD determined the search was out of policy.”

The report concluded that the department should end pretextual stops or set restrictions, such as those used by the San Francisco Police Department.

“SPD is currently examining our enforcement protocols including pretext stops and a department-wide effort is underway to support intelligence-based policing,” Lester’s response stated. “SPD is also closely tracking proposed legislation in this area and has been in the process of examining outside agency policies. SPD will review the SFPD policy and the Tampa Bay PD policy, as well as conduct additional outreach to other agencies as needed.”

The report also found:

▪ Police officers engage in automatic pat-downs of citizens, which is against the 1968 U.S. Supreme Court decision Terry v. Ohio. Gang Enforcement Team officers can be heard on body camera footage saying, “I pat everyone down.” They also patted down someone as a result of a routine traffic violation, which violates the Fourth Amendment.

▪ Officers searched or seized cellphones in violation of state and federal laws. Multiple times officers “forcibly seized” cellphones from bystanders who were legally recording officers in public. In one case, an elderly woman was calmly recording officers who were arresting her son. During the detainment, an officer grabbed the woman “while another officer twisted her arm until she lost control of the phone,” then seized it.

▪ The department has no policy regarding handcuffing minors. In one instance a 10-year-old Black girl was scared and crying in her pajamas after being handcuffed and reprimanded by an officer, the report stated. “Although the child in this case was not handcuffed for a long period of time, this incident was obviously traumatic to the child and will certainly shape her view of police officers in the future.”

▪ Officers routinely enter homes without warrants and conducted searches without sufficient legal authority. In some cases, officers broke down doors or physically pushed residents aside to conduct so-called welfare checks, the report stated.

“The Sacramento Police Department is a leader in transparent and progressive policing,” Lester’s response stated. “We continually find ways to advance our profession and we demand high standards of those entrusted with providing service to our community. ... SPD is committed to constitutional policing. We will continue to work with our community, collaborate with OPSA, and proactively identify ways to move our department forward.”

The council meeting takes place at 5 p.m.