Less Lethal Ammunition Allegedly Purchased With Calif. Tax Money

A California man alleges the city of La Mesa and its police chief have used public tax dollars to purchase and use “less lethal” ammunition during recent protests.

Plaintiff Justin Miller says that use of tax dollars is illegal and unconstitutional because it violates protesters’ First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as well as the California Constitution.

Protests exploded in the U.S. and around the world in May after George Floyd, a 46-year-old Black man, was killed at the hands of Minneapolis police. While the demonstrations have been largely peaceful, rioting and looting have broken out in some cities.

Often, police forces assigned to these protests have used rubber bullets, batons, tear gas and other force deemed “less lethal” as a means of trying to control the crowds.

The La Mesa Police Department is responsible for the administration and use of tax dollars collected for law-enforcement purposes, the complaint says. As such, La Mesa and the department are reportedly required to avoid using those funds for illegal and unconstitutional purposes. As La Mesa’s police chief, defendant Walt Vasquez allegedly bears the responsibility of overseeing and administering those funds in a legal way.

Miller, a La Mesa resident, has participated in peaceful demonstrations with his young children and says in his lawsuit that the defendants have a duty to protect and defend protesters’ fundamental rights.

Instead of responsibly using taxpayer money, the complaint says, the La Mesa Police Department has fallen short of its duties in several ways during the recent protest marches.

Miller says the department “has used so-called ‘less-lethal’ ammunition (e.g., bean-bag and rubber bullets), chemical devices, and batons indiscriminately to disrupt and disperse peaceful (i.e., non-violent) demonstrators, with many serious resulting injuries,” violating the marchers’ constitutional rights. 

“LMPD’s actions from the end of May 2020 through the beginning of June 2020 demonstrate repeated failures to respect the rights of demonstrators calling for justice and police reform,” Miller’s complaint says.

“Whether it is because of indifferent training and policies or an intention to undermine the constitutional rights of demonstrators, LMPD has established a pattern of violating demonstrators’ constitutional rights.”

Miller’s lawsuit calls citizens’ ability to demonstrate and petition a “part of the constitutional DNA of this country.” 

The images of the La Mesa officers’ tactics on demonstrators and the resulting injuries increase the cost of public participation in the protests, which are likely to be ongoing, Miller says.

“Unless restrained, LMPD will continue to threaten the rights of people in our community who want to assemble and use their collective voices to call for an end to racial injustice and police brutality across this country and in La Mesa,” the complaint says.

The defendants’ use of “less lethal” ammunition and devices on peaceful demonstrators violates demonstrators’ rights, including the right to be free from unreasonable seizure and excessive force and the right to assemble and demonstrate against government action, Miller’s lawsuit maintains.

La Mesa and its police department allegedly depend on public funding, including taxes, to purchase and deploy the devices allegedly being used illegally on protesters; therefore, their use of these funds is “an illegal expenditure and waste of public funds,” the complaint says. 

Miller seeks a declaratory judgment that the La Mesa Police Department’s use of “less-lethal” ammunition and devices on peaceful demonstrators is unconstitutional and, therefore, an illegal expenditure of public funds. He is also asking for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their officers from using public funds to purchase “less lethal” ammunition and devices that may be used on peaceful demonstrators.

The plaintiff asks for court costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees and any other relief deemed proper by the Court. 

“Less Lethal” Ammunition & BLM Protests

Similar lawsuits have been filed against cities across the country, alleging constitutional rights violations and excessive force on the part of police departments.

Two Texans recently filed a lawsuit against the Dallas Police Department. The plaintiffs claim they were attacked with “less lethal” ammunition without reason while attending peaceful protests.

Another group of protesters filed a class action lawsuit against President Donald Trump and other government officials, alleging Trump and the U.S. attorney general ordered the use of police force against peaceful demonstrators. They claim the violence was ordered so that the area of Lafayette Square could be cleared for the president to have his photo taken.

Plaintiffs in a South Carolina class action lawsuit allege law enforcement officers used a baton, “less lethal” ammunition such as rubber bullets, and tear gas to control a peaceful crowd.

And a Palto Alto, Calif., man alleges he was so badly beaten by law enforcement during a protest that he almost died, ending up in the emergency room after being knocked unconscious. He allegedly suffered a traumatic brain injury, incurred a broken eye socket and sustained injuries to his wrist, knees and legs.

Are you aware of police departments using funds illegally? Let us know in the comments.

Miller is represented by Gerald Singleton of Singleton Law Firm APC.

The La Mesa Illegal Use of Public Funds Lawsuit is Justin Miller v. City of La Mesa, et al., Case No. 37-2020-00023404-CU-MC-CTL, in Superior Court Of California, County Of San Diego.

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

Teladoc Class Action Lawsuit Claims Unwanted Telemarketing Calls

OxyCide Cleaner Hazards: An Overview of OSHA Regulations

Calif. Police Falsely Arrest Transgender, Class Action Says

Why Do Car Dealerships Use Ringless Voicemail?