City of San Jose, Police Chief Hit with Civil Rights Class Action Lawsuit Over False Arrests
Last Updated on May 8, 2018
Ruiz et al. v. City of San Jose et al.
Filed: November 8, 2017 ◆§ 5:17-cv-06488
A civil rights lawsuit claims San Jose, its police chief and certain officers falsely targeted men for arrest based on their perceived sexual orientations.
Five plaintiffs have put their names on a proposed class action lawsuit filed against the City of San Jose, its chief of police, and seven individual police officers over the false arrests of the men and others under the fabricated pretense of soliciting or engaging in lewd conduct in public restrooms. The 18-page lawsuit alleges the defendants, among other potential civil rights violations, discriminated against proposed class members on the basis of their perceived sexual orientation and gender. According to the plaintiffs, possibly hundreds of men were illegally arrested by the defendants because, the complaint reads, “they were perceived to be interested in meeting in public, men interested in non-monetary intimate association with other men.”
The lead plaintiffs claim in the complaint that:
- The defendants targeted areas believed to be frequented by men who they perceived to be interested in meeting in public other men interested in intimate association “for the purpose of discouraging these men from these areas and/or arresting them”;
- The officer defendants falsely arrested some men, who did not violate any laws, on the perception that they were interested in meeting other men in public;
- The defendants publicized the targeting and arrests of proposed class members; and
- San Jose’s police department inadequately or improperly trained its officers and sent them into certain areas with the objective of violating proposed class members' rights under California and federal law.
Each plaintiff’s story described in the complaint reads similarly, with the men claiming they were approached by a “decoy” officer who would then suggest they engage in lewd acts in a nearby restroom. The plaintiffs say they were arrested under the charge of “loitering around a toilet.” Each man’s case was ultimately dismissed, with Superior Court of Santa Clara County Judge Jose Franco ruling the defendants’ sting operation in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
The full complaint can be read below.
Hair Relaxer Lawsuits
Women who developed ovarian or uterine cancer after using hair relaxers such as Dark & Lovely and Motions may now have an opportunity to take legal action.
Read more here: Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawsuits
Stay Current
Sign Up For
Our Newsletter
New cases and investigations, settlement deadlines, and news straight to your inbox.
Before commenting, please review our comment policy.