Documents and Incidents Tagged "Richmond Police"

A lawsuit was filed against the Richmond Police then-Chief and the Virginia State Police Superintendent for its treatment of racial justice protesters during the summer of 2020.

29-year-old Verlon Johnson was shot to death unarmed on his front porch.

"On May 17, 2002, Detective Melvin led a team of eight other police officers to Verlon Johnson's South Side home to arrest him. Mr. Johnson came out of his house as ordered, his hands in the air. Detective Melvin testified that he saw the self-employed landscaper suddenly drop his right hand. The detective fired. Verlon Johnson fell backward onto his porch, his hands upraised and coming to rest by the sides of his head.

No gun was found. Further, Rosa Johnson, Mr. Johnson's wife, testified that her husband was left-handed. The Johnsons had five children, four of whom were in the house with their mother when their father was killed."

Twenty-nine-year-old father of five Verlon Johnson was shot to death while unarmed on his front porch in South Side as a nine-member police team attempted to arrest him on robbery and firearms charges.

No gun was found on or near Johnson. Detective David Melvin, the only officer at the scene to pull his gun, was charged with involuntary manslaughter.

Following two mistrials, he was acquitted at the third trial. The City settled out of court with Johnson’s widow for an undisclosed amount.

Police responded to a call on the 1900 block of Cedar St. for "a disturbance with an armed person". They later identified the person as Kenneth Sharp, 20, of Richmond.

An unnamed officer shot Kenneth Sharp, who was transported to the hospital and died there.

From the active call log, it looks like unit 113A8 responded to the initial call. Numerous other officers from Major Crimes and other precincts showed up once the shooting was reported.

See video.

Oliver Holley was accused of assaulting Officer Onoratti, but body camera footage seems to indicate it was actually the other way around.

See video.

Benjamin Frazer and others assault, tie up legal observer Charlie Schmidt when he attempts to take their photo.

"Schmidt drove away from Lee Circle via Monument Avenue, then proceeded west on to Broad Street, eventually ending up at the corner of Hermitage Road and West Leigh Street.

It was there that Schmidt noticed several Richmond Police cars inside the recently renovated Saur's shopping business center. He turned right on Hermitage, then turned right again into the back entrance to the parking lot, parking in the back north/west corner.

A large faction of Richmond Police was in the front of the parking lot, closer to Whole Foods and Broad Street.

Schmidt estimates that 45-50 Richmond Police officers were present and upon information and belief, the area was being used by them as

staging for some other action offsite or event.

Schmidt sat in his car observing from a distance of several dozen yards for a few minutes when an unknown Richmond Police officer crossed the entire length of the Whole Foods Parking to the separate Rear Parking Lot where Schmidt was parked. He asked Schmidt if he was

okay, to which Schmidt responded yes. The officer walked back to his police car in the Whole Foods Parking Lot.

A second officer, Benjamin Frazer (“Frazer”), approached Schmidt’s car with the same question, to which Schmidt again responded “'yes, I'm fine.'

Frazer then advised Schmidt that he needed to leave the Rear Parking Lot because Richmond Police had been asked to enforce security for a private business Whole Foods, which was not true.

Schmidt questioned Frazer’s authority to enforce such an order, given that the Rear Parking Lot appeared to be public space and another car was parked in the same lot. There were no “No Parking” or “No Trespass” signs in the Rear Parking Lot nor were there any signs indicating the Rear Parking Lot was closed at night.

Schmidt asked Frazer if anyone could verify that the Rear Parking Lot was closed or that he was legally required to leave the premises.

In response to Schmidt’s questioning the authority of Richmond Police to demand he leave the Rear Parking Lot; Frazer unnecessarily escalated the situation.

Despite Schmidt identifying himself as an attorney and trained legal observer, Frazer again demanded that Schmidt leave because (he described) Richmond Police Department had had people 'doxing' them and causing 'problems.'

By this point, Schmidt’s car was surrounded by approximately 6-8 Richmond Police officers; one in front of his car and several others behind and on either side. Schmidt was unable to leave the Rear Parking Lot as his car was surrounded by officers.

Schmidt then asked Frazer his name, who refused, in violation of Richmond Police Department's own policy. Frazer merely repeated that Schmidt needed to leave.

Schmidt asked a second officer standing nearby for his name and was told 'I'm not allowed to give out that information,' again in violation of Department policy. Schmidt advised that he needed someone's name in order to follow up with Richmond Police. None of the officers would identify themselves.

Schmidt then advised Frazer and the other Richmond Police officers that he would leave and put his car into 'drive.' As he was leaving, Schmidt reached for his smart phone, held it up for the officers to see, and advised he was going to snap a quick picture of the scene before he left.

Frazer's knee-jerk reaction to Schmidt's attempt take a picture was to reach through Schmidt's window while he was driving. Frazer advised Schmidt that he was under arrest and that he needed to get out of the car. Frazer and another RPD officer opened Schmidt's car door to forcibly yank him from his car. Schmidt advised that his car was in 'drive' and that he needed to put it in 'park.'

By this point, several Richmond Police officers were unnecessarily screaming at Schmidt. Frazer advised Schmidt that was he going to jail and began to process him for arrest.

Richmond Police officers thereafter zip-tied Schmidt's hands incredibly tight and detained him while Frazer began to write up the paperwork.

Schmidt again calmly advised the unknown Richmond Police officers that he was a lawyer and there were no grounds to arrest him, quoting the applicable Virginia code sections on criminal procedure (Virginia Code § 19.2-74), which states essentially that an officer shall release someone accused of a misdemeanor on summons, rather than arrest, unless the officer can determine that person is a flight risk, danger to themselves or others, or will not stop doing the offending action.

A few minutes later, a higher-ranking Richmond Police officer, or unknown

Supervisor Doe, drove over to where Schmidt was being detained and spoke with Frazer. After this, Frazer turned on his body-worn camera. Frazer then begrudgingly advised Schmidt he would be released on summons and Schmidt was given a ticket.

Frazer did not have probable cause to arrest Schmidt or issue him a citation, and instead it was a pretext employed by Richmond Police to harass and intimidate in retaliation for Schmidt’s attempt to take a picture of the scene.

The zip-ties, now removed, left painful marks on Schmidt’s wrists where they had been placed by the officers.

Because his signature was illegible on the summons, Schmidt asked Frazer to clarify his name. Frazer said his name for the first time and walked away in a gruff manner. As he walked away, Frazer stated to other officers present that he was 'definitely getting sued for this.'"

Frazer did, indeed, get sued for this. Excerpt from Schmidt v City of Richmond et al, Case 3:22-cv-00404, Amended Complaint, Document #139.

"On the evening of October 21, 2001, Officers Chuck Howell (Howell) and Robert Sprinkle (Sprinkle) of the Richmond City Police Department... as members of the drugs and weapons unit... arrived at the Creighton Court apartment complex at approximately 8:30 p.m. as part of an effort to surprise 'anyone who was dealing drugs' in the neighborhood, which was 'known for its numerous drug activities.'

They parked at the southern end of the complex and were walking north when they noticed a group of individuals in a 'cut' between two apartment buildings...

Howell [said that he] suspected that a drug transaction 'was going to occur or had occurred.'

However, neither officer saw any drug activities or exchanges.

Howell and Sprinkle continued walking toward the group. At that point, defendant 'looked in [the officers'] direction' and immediately 'took off running' in the opposite direction...

Howell yelled at defendant to stop, and he 'got on the ground.'

Sprinkle handcuffed defendant and did a 'pat down' search for weapons.

No weapons or drugs were found at that time.

Howell did not tell defendant that he was under arrest, and Sprinkle told defendant 'you're not under arrest, [you're] under investigative detention until we can figure out . . . what's going on...'

Sprinkle arrested him for trespassing and in a search incident to the arrest found drugs and a cellular telephone.

The trial court ruled:

'I understand why the officers did what they did. But . . . [u]nder the evidence that has been presented to this Court, I do not find the facts to rise to a reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has occurred or even that a crime is about to occur, and I grant the motion to suppress."

The Commonwealth appeals this ruling.

"..[T]he district court, in the Suppression Order of November 29, 2001, concluded that “[g]iven the totality of the circumstances known to the officers in this case [Robert S. Sprinkle and Eric Flick], there was not reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, sufficient to conduct an investigatory stop of the defendant.'

,.[T]he question of “[w]hether an officer has such reasonable suspicion to justify a stop-and-frisk is subject to de novo review...

Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Terry v. Ohio, law enforcement officers may properly conduct a brief investigative stop of an individual when they possess reasonable suspicion, grounded in specific articulable facts, that he has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity.

On appeal, the Government asserts that the events occurring in connection with the surveillance operation of July 12, 2001, were sufficient to create a reasonable suspicion... The Government maintains that... the district court erred... [W]e agree."

Richmond Police Civil Unrest Task Force attacks small crowd of protesters outside Richmond City Justice Center, attempting to rip off one protester's top, banging one protester's head into a riot shield, and attempting to drag another protester off a bike.

Police stormed Marcus David-Peters Circle where less than 30 people lay relaxing playing music, talking among one another, or playing board games. They unleashed tear gas, upended free food distribution stations, confiscated books from the little free library, and stole the trash cans donated to the site.

"A. The City of Richmond Police Department (“RPD”) agrees to memorialize a First Amendment policy in a General Order and will seek input from Plaintiffs, through counsel, with the ultimate policy being approved through RPD’s normal chain of command, and implement training once approved.

B. RPD will review its General Orders to determine which, if any, may be published on its website, in a fashion similar to Fairfax County, Virginia’s police department.

C. RPD will provide a status update to Plaintiffs’ counsel ninety (90) days from the date of this execution of this Release and Settlement Agreement, and on a continuing basis thereafter until all policies have been reviewed."

Richmond Police Sergeant Cody Adams shot 61-year-old Douglas Price on January 9, 2023 after forcibly entering his home during a "multi-jurisdictional narcotics raid." Adams died in the hospital on July 12 from injuries.

Richmond police fatally shot Isaac Thompson, 21.

A court complaint against Richmond Police Officer Ryan J. Novak and several unnamed John Does alleges unlawful search and seizure. The complaint was filed in Virginia Eastern District Court by Bobby Boomer on October 11, 2023. It was assigned the case number 3:23cv650.