Date: 07-03-2024

Case Style:

Docas Githinji, et al. v. Olympia Police Department, et al.

Case Number: 3:22-cv-05138

Judge: Marsha J. Pechman

Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (Pierce County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Tacoma Civil Rights Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney: John E. JUstice

Description:

Tacoma, Washington civil rights lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued on constitutional rights violations theories.

This case was filed in the : Thurston County Superior Court, 22-00002-00356-34, and was removed to federal court by the Olympia Police Department.

On the evening of January 26, 2020, Plaintiff Jake Shriver called 911 and reported he was having trouble with his wife, Plaintiff Dorcas Githinji, and could not have her in his house anymore. (Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of John Justice (Dkt. No. 74-1) (911 call recording).) Roughly ten minutes later, Shriver called 911 back to say that he did not need assistance. (Ex. 3 to the Declaration of Jonah Campbell ISO Mot. to Exclude (Dkt. No. 78-3 at 3).) Officers nevertheless arrived on the scene. This included Defendant Officers Tiffany Coates, Nathan Smith, and Thomas Milavec. (See Justice Decl. Exs. 3 & 5 (Dkt. No. 74-3, 74-5) (video footage).) As Plaintiffs concede, the officers had probable cause to investigate a possible domestic violence dispute. (Pls. Mot to Exclude at 2 (Dkt. No. 76).)

One of the key disputed issues in the case is whether Shriver assaulted and unlawfully imprisoned Githinji before she was able to leave the home to speak with officers. Video records show Officers Coates, Milavec, and Smith arrive at the house. (See Justice Decl. Ex. 3.) Coates knocked on the door and began speaking with Shriver through what appears to be a closed screen door. (Id.) Shriver told Coates that “everything is fine,” while his Doberman Pinscher barked loudly in the background. (Id.) Coates responded: “We just need to make sure everyone is okay, and we're not going to go away until that happens.” (Id.) While Coates talked, Smith and Milavec stood nearby on the porch, and another officer, Vasile Kovzun, arrived on the scene. (Id.; Coates Dep. at 26 (Dkt. No. 74 at 7).) Sometime after the officers began talking with Shriver, Githinji exited through the door to speak with the officers. From the video, it appears that Githinji left on her own accord, unimpeded by either Shriver or the officers. But Coates wrote in a post-incident report that before Githinji successfully left the house, Shriver had “grab[bed] her by the right wrist using his left hand” for a few seconds and “told her she was not going outside.” (Dkt No. 87-1 at 4 (Coates' OPD Report).) This caused Githinji to be “pushed backward” and when she attempted to exit the house for a second time, Shriver “put his arm out across her chest and stopped her from exiting.” (Id.) Officer Smith similarly wrote in his postincident report that as Githinji “tried to walk out to us . . . [Shriver] grabbed [her] right hand with his left hand in order to prevent her from leaving.” (Dkt. No. 87-1 at 7.) Smith explained that “[t]he grab was firm and momentarily knocked [Githinji] backwards.” (Id.) Consistent with Coates' report, Smith stated that Shriver attempted to impede Githinji from the leaving the house when she again tried to leave, but that Shriver became “distracted by the dog” and Githinji “was able to exit the residence and step outside with officers.” (Id.) Both Shriver and Githinji dispute the Officers' version of the facts and maintain that Shriver did not impede or assault Githinji. (Declaration of Dorcas Githinji ¶ 3 (Dkt. No. 88); Declaration of Jake Shriver ¶ 8 (Dkt. No. 89).)

The video recording provided by the Parties sheds only limited insight into whether Shriver assaulted or detained Githinji. The recording captures Shriver say, “do not open the door” and warned the officers that his “dog will bite your face off.” (Justice Decl. Ex. 5.) The video also shows that Githinji exited the home without any assistance from any of the officers. (Id.) As Githinji left, Shriver yelled “[Githinji] are you fucking kidding me?!” (Id.) Coates testified that Githinji was “extremely timid” and “did not want to be near the dog.” (Coates Dep. at 41 (Dkt. No. 74 at 8).) Smith's report also contains the observation that Githinji “appeared scared.” (Dkt. No. 87-1 at 7.) But Githinji avers that she was not scared of Shriver during the incident and was “merely startled at being awoken late at night to find police at my door.” (Githinji Decl. ¶ 2.) The video appears to confirm this, as Githinji explained calmly to the officers that “I'm fine” and “everything is ok.” (Justice Decl. Ex. 5.) She also explains that “the dog is really dangerous.” (Id.) The video also shows that after Githinji left the house, Shriver became more upset and increasingly yelled profanities at the officers and demanded Githinji return. (Id.)

Sergeant Johnson arrived on the scene after Githinji exited the home and warned officers that he was aware Shriver possessed firearms based on an earlier visit. (Justice Decl. Ex. 6.) Although he had not seen the alleged assault, Johnson told the other officers to back out and take cover. (Id.) Johnson ordered the other officers to remove Githinji from the porch, and the video shows officers Milavec and Kovzun place hands on and physically remove Githinji, though the video shows little more. (Id.) Johnson testified in his deposition that he wanted to back away from the home with Githinji given his fear of the dog and prior knowledge of Shriver's gun ownership and he was informed about the assault either before or shortly after he ordered the retreat. (Johnson Dep. at 52.) Smith's written report states that “Kovzun walked [Githinji] to a patrol vehicle where she was secured.” (Dkt. No. 87-1 at 7.) Smith's report confirms that he was the officer who kept Githinji and asked her about the incident. (Id.) According to Smith, Githinji explained that Shriver was heavily intoxicated and the two had been having a purely verbal argument about his level of intoxication. (Id. at 8.) Githinji assisted officers by calling Shriver and asking him to exit. (Id.) But Shriver refused to exit. Officers detained Githinji for several hours during which she did not believe she was free to leave. (Githinji Decl. ¶¶ 1, 4.) She spoke to two officers who she claims did not listen to or accept her statement that Shriver “did not assault me in any way and that he has never assaulted me or engaged in any violence against me.” (Id. ¶ 4.)

Unable to coax Shriver out of the home, Officer Smith applied for a search warrant from a Thurston County Judge via telephone. (Dkt. No. 87-1 at 8.) During the call, Smith stated that Githinji appeared scared and when she “tried to walk out to us, and [Shriver] grabbed [her] right hand in order to prevent her from leaving.” (Ex. 4 to the Declaration of Jonah Campbell (Dkt. No. 78-4 at 3).) He told the Judge that Githinji “backed away for a second from the door for a short time” and that “when [Githinji] tried to walk out again to talk to us, [Shriver], while holding his dog with his right hand, put his left hand in front of [Githinji] and told her something to the effect of ‘you're not going out there.'” (Id.) Smith claimed “[t]he arm over the chest appeared to be a strike, as it once again knocked her backwards” though Githinji “was able to open the door and step outside.” (Id.)

In response to the Judge's inquiry about what Githinji believed had happened, Smith testified that Githinji “has been uncooperative,” and that she had “been unable to provide us further information on if an assault occurred in the house.” (Dkt. No. 78 at 5.) But Smith also testified that Githinji explained that they had been having only a verbal argument about Shriver's intoxicated state. (Id.) And in response to the Judge's inquiry of how long Shriver detained Githinji in the home, Smith testified it was “a couple [of] seconds.” (Id.) After Smith confirmed that he had sufficient belief that he had witnessed an assault and unlawful imprisonment, the Judge found probable cause to issue a search warrant to detain Shriver in his residence. (Id.)

After Smith obtained the warrant, Johnson called the SWAT team who then used a substantial amount of force to arrest Shriver and take him into custody. (Dkt. No. 87-1 at 5, 8.) After the incident, the officer defendants debriefed the incident. As Johnson testified, they officers did a “debrief of how the - you know, the night played out, what we could do better[.]” (Johnson Dep. at 76-77 (Dkt. No. 87-2).)

After Shriver's arrest, the Thurston County Prosecutor filed charges against Shriver. The Prosecutor's probable cause statement relied on the “available law enforcement reports, statements, photographs and/or other evidence” that were attached to her declaration. (Dkt. No. 87-4.) The exhibit Plaintiffs provide of the probable cause statement includes only Smith's report as an attachment, not Coates' report. The Prosecutor then obtained a no-contact order on January 27, 2020, which was not rescinded until May 27, 2021, sixteen months later. (Albert Decl. Ex. 10.) The charges against Shriver were also dismissed that same month. (Third Amended Complaint (TAC) ¶ 4.7 (Dkt. No. 81).)

Outcome: THE JURY HAS FOUND in favor of the Defendants Nicholas Smith and Thomas Milavec as to Plaintiff Dorcas Githinji's federal and state claims (Claims 1-5), in favor of Defendants Nicholas Smith and Thomas Milavec as to Plaintiff Jason Shriver's federal claims (Claim 1), and in favor Defendants Nicholas Smith and Thomas Milavec as to their affirmative defense to Plaintiff Jason Shriver's state law claims (Claims 3-5). (See Jury Verdict (Dkt. # 160 ).) (KRA) (Entered: 07/03/2024)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: