Citizen Report No. 1678311739 - 712741038

This Case Alleges:

Abuse of Authority

By unlawfully detaining and/or arresting the Loggervale family members, using force on them, and illegally searching them and their belongings.

Unlawful Search

By illegally searching the Loggervale family members' belongings. 

Deprivation of Rights

By unlawfully detaining and/or arresting the Loggervale family members, using force on them, and illegally searching them and their belongings.

Use of Force

By using force on Loggervale family members. 

07/14/2020, The Loggervale family members filed a lawsuit in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND DIVISION under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act.  Loggervale et al v. County of Alameda et al

The Lawsuit alleges: 

18. On the morning of September 20, 2019, Plaintiffs arrived in Castro Valley, California, after having driven overnight from Nevada so that Aasylei and Aaottae could get to their respective college classes. Ms. Loggervale was driving a silver four-door Cadillac that she had rented. She parked the vehicle in a handicapped parking space, with a visible placard on the rear-view mirror, near the Starbucks located at 2720 Castro Valley Blvd. 19.

19. Plaintiffs were in the vehicle, resting briefly and preparing to go to the Starbucks to get coffee and use the restroom before the final leg of their drive when Defendants Holland and Pope approached the vehicle. Defendant Holland first spoke with Ms. Loggervale, who informed him that she had just gotten into town from Las Vegas. Defendant Holland indicated that there had been car break-ins in the area and asked Ms. Loggervale for her identification.

20. Ms. Loggervale refused to provide Defendant Holland her driver’s license and did not believe she was required to do so. Further, Ms. Loggervale did not want to engage further with Defendants because, as a Black person, she feared that the encounter could result in serious physical harm or death to her and/or her daughters. This fear was justified in light of the high number of documented incidents of police brutality against Black people, even those who are completely innocent of any crimes.

21. Despite Ms. Loggervale’s refusal to provide identification, Defendant Holland persisted in asking her to provide it. Plaintiffs began verbally protesting what they considered to be harassment by Defendant Holland, and repeatedly asked what basis there was to persist in questioning them. Plaintiffs also repeatedly stated that they had not done anything wrong and had no connection whatsoever to any auto burglaries. While Plaintiffs were firm in their verbal tone, they never screamed or yelled, they never threatened Defendants, and never said or did anything that would have led a reasonable law enforcement officer to fear for their safety or to suspect that Plaintiffs committed, or were planning on committing, any crime.

22. Soon after the encounter began, Aaottae began video recording the incident on her cell phone. Later, Aasylei recorded some of the incident as well. Plaintiffs continued to protest Defendant Holland’s persistence in seeking identification and explaining that they had not done anything wrong. Defendant Holland did not dispute these statements, nor did he offer any reason to justify a belief to the contrary. Instead, when Aasylei exited the backseat of the vehicle to use the restroom, Defendant Holland informed the Plaintiffs that they were all being detained. He told Aasylei that if she did not return to the vehicle she would be handcuffed and placed in Defendant Holland’s vehicle.

23. After Defendant Holland told Plaintiffs they were detained, and threatened to handcuff Aaottae, Plaintiffs continued verbally protesting Holland’s actions. Aaottae also exited the vehicle, continued video recording, and demanded to know why Plaintiffs were being detained. Defendants Holland and Pope refused to provide an explanation.

24. Shortly after Aaottae exited the vehicle, Defendant Leeper arrived on scene. Defendant Holland told him: “They don’t want to listen to us so let’s go ahead and detain these two,” referring to Aaottae and Aasylei. In response, Defendant Leeper handcuffed Aasylei while Defendant Pope handcuffed Aaottae, who was a minor at the time.

25. After Defendants Leeper and Pope handcuffed Aasylei and Aaottae, Defendant Holland physically removed Ms. Loggervale from her vehicle and handcuffed her as well. Defendants forcibly placed all three Plaintiffs into patrol vehicles. Thereafter, one or more Defendants searched Plaintiffs’ vehicle, including the trunk, and Plaintiffs’ personal belongings, including their purses and cell phones, and took their identifications from their personal belongings.

26. Defendants held Plaintiffs handcuffed in the back of Defendants’ patrol cars for several minutes. At some point, Aasylei informed Defendant Leeper that she had to use the restroom but he refused to allow her to do so. Eventually, Defendant DeSousa, an ACSO lieutenant, arrived on scene and learned the circumstances surrounding the detentions. However, despite learning that no reasonable suspicion existed to detain Plaintiffs (much less probable cause to arrest), he did not immediately instruct his subordinates to release them. Eventually, however, Defendants released Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs were neither cited for, nor charged with, any crimes.

27. As a result of the Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs suffered a deprivation of their rights and liberties, sustained physical injuries, including abrasions to their wrists and arms, and suffered physical pain, mental suffering, emotional distress, fear, embarrassment, and other general damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

28. At no time during the encounter with Defendants did Plaintiffs do or say anything that would put a reasonable officer in fear of his or her safety.

29. Following the incident, Defendants Holland and Pope claimed in a written incident report that the reason for approaching Plaintiff was that there were auto burglaries in the preceding months at or near the subject location involving possible suspects described as Black males. While Defendants listed other facts in their incident reports that purportedly led them to believe there was something suspicious about Plaintiffs’ behavior, those facts were either fabricated or merely pretextual. Even if the facts set forth in the Defendants’ reports are true (which Plaintiffs dispute), those facts still did not give rise to a reasonable suspicion to detain Plaintiffs, and certainly did not furnish probable cause to arrest Plaintiffs and search them, their vehicle, and their belongings.

30. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and intend to prove after conducting relevant discovery, that Defendants’ actions in detaining and/or arresting Plaintiffs, using force on them, and illegally searching them and their belongings, were motivated largely or entirely by the following (1) Plaintiffs’ skin color, (2) Ms. Loggervale’s refusal to provide her identification during what started as a consensual encounter, and/or (3) Plaintiffs’ verbal protestations of the Defendants’ actions and Plaintiffs’ accusation that the Defendants were harassing them. Indeed, as shown on the video footage captured by Plaintiffs’ cell phones and the video footage Plaintiffs expect to obtain from the Defendants’ body cams, Plaintiffs did not do or say anything that would have provided reasonable suspicion or probable cause for the detention and/or arrest and subsequent searches. Therefore, there is a strong inference that the Defendants were in fact motivated by one or more the three factors enumerated above.

03/01/2023 Verdict and Judgement

Based on the unanimous verdict, judgment is entered IN FAVOR of Ms. Aasylei Loggervale for $2,750,000 jointly and severally AGAINST Deputy Steven Holland and the County of Alameda.

Judgment is entered IN FAVOR of Aaottae Loggervale for $2,000,000 jointly and severally AGAINST Deputy Steven Holland and the County of Alameda.

Judgment is entered IN FAVOR of Aasylei Hardge-Loggervale for $2,000,000 jointly and severally AGAINST Deputy Steven Holland and the County of Alameda.

Judgment is entered IN FAVOR of Aaottae Loggervale for $750,000 jointly and severally AGAINST Deputy Monica Pope and the County of Alameda.

Judgment is entered IN FAVOR of Aasylei Hardge-Loggervale for $750,000 jointly and severally AGAINST Deputy Monica Pope and the County of Alameda. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 1, 2023.

Total: $8,250,000