The Ohio cops who pulled over a Black man named Ryan Pitts in 2023 were getting frustrated at not finding anything illegal to arrest him on so they yanked him out of his car after he began recording them with his phone – which is his constitutional right.
Columbus police officer Lucas Lauvray then accused Pitts of touching his taser, threatening to put him “on the f_cking ground” before placing him handcuffed in the back of a patrol car.
Lauvray and the other two cops, Columbus police officers Emily Geier and Daxton Cates, then turned off their body cameras for almost 30 minutes to fabricate charges against Pitts, according to the federal lawsuit filed by the Black man last year that lists all three cops as defendants.
While their body cameras were turned off and Pitts sat in the back of a patrol car with his hands cuffed behind his back, the cops illegally searched his car for guns or drugs but found nothing.
They then claimed to have viewed video footage from a police surveillance camera and determined Pitts had not come to a complete stop prior to being pulled over – but that video was deleted if it even existed because it was never introduced as evidence, the claim states.
On Monday, the Columbus City Council unanimously approved a $30,000 settlement for the 30-year-old Black man.
Pitts’ attorney, Daniel J. Sabol of Ohio, told local media the three cops were on a “fishing expedition” when they pulled him over, falsely accusing him of having illegal tints.
“Defendant Officers have, through false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution, violated Mr. Pitts’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and conspired against Plaintiff to violate those rights,” Sabol wrote in the 13-page lawsuit.
The Fishing Expedition
The incident took place on August 11, 2023, after Pitts pulled out of a gas station, drawing the attention of Geier who began following him, apparently hoping he would commit a traffic infraction.
But Pitts, who possesses a commercial driver’s license, knew she was behind him and was careful to come to complete stops and use his turn signal, the claim states.
As she was following him, she read Pitts’ license plate number to a dispatcher who informed the officer he was a valid driver. Just as Geier was about to give up, Cates, the second officer listed in the lawsuit as a defendant, pulled up next to her in his patrol car.
The claim states she informed Cates that she had observed Pitts come to a complete stop before driving out of the gas station into the public road.
But she ended up pulling him over on a false claim for illegal tints, telling Pitts she “did not care” when he explained and demonstrated to her his tints were legal, the claim states.
While Geier took his driver’s license back to her patrol car to run it for warrants, finding nothing to arrest him on, Cates was interrogating Pitts about whether he had any drugs or weapons which Pitts denied.
Officer Lauvray then pulled up and escalated the traffic stop, according to the claim.
When Cates asked about Pitts possibly using drugs, there was no claim of evidence that he had used or possessed contraband at any time. A subsequent search of the vehicle proved Pitts had no contraband.
While Mr. Pitts was expressing his frustration at being asked what he was told were “standard questions” relating to drug use, Defendant Lauvray told Pitts to “shut up” and asked if Mr. Pitts had weapons. After again expressing frustration because he “did not break any laws,” Pitts stated that “I ain’t got no weapons.”
Defendant Lauvray then told Mr. Pitts to put his hands on the wheel. Pitts did. Pitts then said he was going to record the interaction with his phone, to which Defendant Geier— now back at the vehicle again—responded “that’s fine.” This was apparently not fine with Defendant Lauvray, however, who proceeded to yank Mr. Pitts out of his car.
But after finding nothing illegal in his car, they allowed him to leave after citing him with failure to comply, failure to yield and failure to signal, telling him they were doing him “a favor” by not citing him for illegal tints — even though he did not have illegal tints on his car.
Prosecutors eventually dismissed the three citations.
‘Conduct is Abhorrent’
Three days after the stop, Pitts filed a complaint with the City of Columbus Department of the Inspector General, an independent agency created in 2022 to provide civilian oversight of the Columbus Police Department.
The Inspector General’s office launched an investigation, determining the cops did violate his rights and even profiled him.
The Columbus DIG found Mr. Pitts’ allegation to be “sustained.” That is, the Columbus DIG held “the investigation found evidence that substantiated the complainant’s allegation and the alleged incident violated CPD policies, procedures and/or law.”
While conducting their investigation, the Columbus DIG independently alleged and found further violations against Defendants Geier and Lauvray.
The Columbus DIG found that Defendant Geier violated CPD Directive 3.07 I B, which states “Profiling, in and of itself is not inappropriate when used legally and for a legitimate law enforcement purpose. However, bias-base profiling illegally infringes on the rights of others and will not be tolerated by the Division.”
The four cops were disciplined through “verbal counseling,” The Columbus Dispatch reported.
The lawsuit accused the cops of violating Pitts’ Fourth and 14 Amendment rights through false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution and conspiracy.
“There he sat while officers – at the direction of a supervisor – all turned off their cameras for over a half-hour to discuss how they would handle the situation. Instead of a sincere apology for not knowing the law they are sworn to enforce, officers cited Ryan with conjured offenses, mocked him, and laughed as he drove away,” attorney Sabol said in an emailed statement to local media.
“This conduct is abhorrent and too often unchecked –fortunately, Ryan had the guts to stand up for himself.”
Great Job Carlos Miller & the Team @ Atlanta Black Star for sharing this story.
