It was just a routine workers’ compensation fraud case for Ken Sheppard. Show up for a spot check, do some surveillance of the subject and keep it pushing. But on March 3, 2014, it was anything but routine for the renowned private investigator known for busting reality TV series “Bridezillas” star Anita Maxwell for insurance fraud.
On location in Montrose, California, a city with just under 20,000 residents and less than one percent of them African-American, Mr. Sheppard was conducting regular surveillance of a subject while parked in his black Chevy Tahoe.
The Tahoe Mr. Sheppard was sitting in had side and rear tinted windows and was registered and insured for 3 million dollars in policy coverage.
It’s important to note that in subsequent court documents filed in federal court, Deputy Plunkett, as he was identified, had not been called to the scene by a neighbor or any other witness. No person alerted Deputy Plunkett’s station of suspicious activity in the area. He was just there.
Deputy Plunkett exited his vehicle walking along the drivers’ side of the Tahoe, with his weapon drawn. Upon seeing Deputy Plunkett’s approach, Mr. Sheppard rolled the driver’s side window down and exposed his hands, demonstrating that there was no cause for alarm.
In response to Deputy Plunkett’s question concerning his activities, Mr. Sheppard advised that he was sitting in his vehicle working. Deputy Plunkett asked, “why?” making no mention of having noticed tinted windows, nor any issue with license plates. Deputy Plunkett next asked if Mr. Sheppard was engaged as a “P.I. or something.”
With his weapon still drawn, Deputy Plunkett then placed his left hand on Mr. Sheppard’s left wrist. Mr. Sheppard asked Mr. Plunkett to “please remove” his hand from Mr. Sheppard’s person. Deputy Plunkett refused this request, used his radio and proceeded to ignore Mr. Sheppard’s repeated demands for the intervention of Deputy Plunkett’s Watch Commander.
As the video shows, Mr. Sheppard asked Deputy Plunkett at least eight times to call in a Watch Commander to the location.
While holding Mr. Sheppard’s wrist, Deputy Plunkett was visibly shaking, to the point that Mr. Sheppard could feel and observe the tremors emanating from Deputy Plunkett’s hand. Mr. Sheppard repeated his request that Deputy Plunkett holster his weapon.
According to Mr. Sheppard, in order to make sure that he could properly hear any commands from Deputy Plunkett, he raised his left hand in full view of the deputy and removed a Bluetooth earpiece, from his left ear. His ear was also facing Deputy Plunkett.
It’s at this point that Deputy Plunkett points his Beretta 92F at the side of Mr. Sheppard’s head toward his left temple while shouting “do not fucking be reaching.” At some point, prior to holstering his weapon, Deputy Plunkett “cocked” the hammer of his weapon, while continuing to point the weapon less than one foot from Mr. Sheppard’s temple.
It’s about this time that the videos a second deputy arriving at the location and joining Deputy Plunkett’s side. Deputy Rodriguez, as she was later identified, also had her weapon drawn, in a low ready position. A few moments later, Sergeant Hollis arrived at which point Mr. Sheppard informed Deputy Rodriguez and Sergeant Hollis of everything that had transpired to that point in time. Mr. Sheppard also advised Sergeant Hollis that he was “Code 5,” a reference to his work as a private investigator and the fact that he was actively involved in a legal investigation.
Mr. Sheppard told Deputy Rodriguez and Sergeant Hollis that Deputy Plunkett still had his gun pointed at his head, despite the fact that Deputy Plunkett had neither identified nor articulated a crime in commission.
A second female deputy, later learned to be Deputy Hanson, approached the scene with Mr. Sheppard with her taser drawn. Deputy Plunkett continued to point his weapon, hand shaking, Mr. Sheppard’s left temple. Mr. Sheppard continued to strictly comply with all directives, to the best of his ability. He did have a gun pointed at his head and now a taser.
The video shows Sergeant finally advising Deputy Plunkett to stand down. Sergeant Hollis specifically asked Deputy Plunkett to explain what happened but Deputy Plunkett refuses to answer.
Without a warrant, deputies attempted to inspect the contents of and even entered Mr. Sheppard’s vehicle. After his field frisk, Mr. Sheppard was placed into the backseat of Deputy Plunkett’s cruiser. It’s at this point that Deputy Hanson gets into the front seat of the cruiser and asks Mr. Sheppard what he was doing in the area because, according to her, Mr. Sheppard “did not belong in the area.”
Court documents and video would reveal that Los Angeles Sherriff’s deputies then actually conspired to fabricate charges on Mr. Sheppard after they realized that he was clean as was his vehicle.
Sadly, he lost in court, because the entire video was not presented, likely not the video of the cops making up charges after the fact. He is appealing.
12 Comments
newtboyAlso...
cosmovitellisays...Thing is people are simple, and they go by what seems normal based on their norms. A serious dude who acts unusual and confident is terrifying for a noob cop who knows he can get shot by a serious gangster facing a multi life term in a nighmare profit prison if he blinks. The whole situation in the US seems to now be terrified men pointing guns at each other with shaking hands. When I visit I'm just glad to get out alive.
littledragon_79Interesting to read the jury instructions, especially the requests for admission portion: http://photographyisnotacrime.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Jury-Instructions-1.pdf
I'm a bit on the fence with this one. I understand the fear, but that deputy seemed completely unable to be rational. And that's a tough thing to be in this situation, but you gotta keep your wits about you...for everyone's sake. I'm kind of surprised he didn't accidentally pull the trigger.
As with most of these issues/interactions, I place a lot of blame on the bosses and elected officials for not forming/maintaining a better dept.
littledragon_79
MaxWilderLook, I hate that this shit happens. Absolutely hate it, and I think that way too many cops are undertrained and/or improperly trained.
That being said, we can't see the driver's face. If you want to set a cop off, ignore his commands and glare and talk back. We got two out of three right on the video, and I bet you anything that if we could see the face of the guy talking we'd have the third.
It's still not right for the cop to escalate so dramatically and quickly, but as a viewer we have to not put ourselves in the driver's place and assume he was being a perfect respectful citizen off camera. Instead imagine the situation objectively and consider what other things the cop might have seen that were warning signs to him.
MordhausHere is the thing, he could have taken another path in escalation. At the start of the video he already has his weapon drawn, not his taser, his 9mm handgun. He refused to do anything to de-escalate the situation, such as step back and call for backup and a watch commander. He instead escalated by placing hands on the driver and refused to call in a supervisor. When the driver moved, he escalated again with the weapon and after confirming the driver was no longer moving, continued to keep him in shooting position. After backup arrived with a taser drawn and ready, he still did not go to a guard position with his weapon. He became confrontational and even continued to draw down on the PI after there were multiple police on the scene.
In any case, watch the longer video @littledragon_79 posted. They go over the actual policy and training that the Deputy should have followed per the department's rules, which he did none of. This is either a case of a poorly trained Deputy or a hothead that shouldn't be a law enforcement officer.
dannym3141The scariest thing to me is when people like you normalise the idea that a cop can be "set off". The way you just casually mention it like "Oh yeah, and of course if you piss one off well that's your own fault." And that's beside from anything that happened in the video - you throw up a defence for all other cases! In classic fashion, you insinuate that the blame lies with the victim, without actually saying it outright; to give yourself wiggle room on the retreat.
The fact that you think a look or tone of voice is enough to do so is only horrifying once one realises that the cop has ultimate authority in deciding whether your voice is acceptable to them, or your eyes opened wide enough (but not too wide as to glare).
God forbid any of my american friends get misinterpreted by a cop, because according to some, that's grounds for immediate execution or at least punishment under law.
This philosophy IS the problem.
That being said, we can't see the driver's face. If you want to set a cop off, ignore his commands and glare and talk back.
newtboyThis sounds like you're saying that, unless you display absolute submission in every possible way including waiving your civil rights and safety, that's an excuse for officers to outright murder you and claim they feared for their lives.
BTW, "Why don't you step out for me?" Is a request, not a command. Cops are WELL aware of the difference. You do not need to submit to requests or even answer them.
He never gave a command until he says "don't reach".
Look, I hate that this shit happens. Absolutely hate it, and I think that way too many cops are undertrained and/or improperly trained.
That being said, we can't see the driver's face. If you want to set a cop off, ignore his commands and glare and talk back. We got two out of three right on the video, and I bet you anything that if we could see the face of the guy talking we'd have the third.
It's still not right for the cop to escalate so dramatically and quickly, but as a viewer we have to not put ourselves in the driver's place and assume he was being a perfect respectful citizen off camera. Instead imagine the situation objectively and consider what other things the cop might have seen that were warning signs to him.
MaxWilderThe scariest part to me is that you can read my whole comment and think I'm defending the cop.
What I'm talking about is things that happen because a cop is poorly trained or undertrained, and I said that several times.
But go ahead and pull a couple phrases out of context if you get off that way.
The scariest thing to me is when people like you normalise the idea that a cop can be "set off". The way you just casually mention it like "Oh yeah, and of course if you piss one off well that's your own fault." And that's beside from anything that happened in the video - you throw up a defence for all other cases! In classic fashion, you insinuate that the blame lies with the victim, without actually saying it outright; to give yourself wiggle room on the retreat.
The fact that you think a look or tone of voice is enough to do so is only horrifying once one realises that the cop has ultimate authority in deciding whether your voice is acceptable to them, or your eyes opened wide enough (but not too wide as to glare).
God forbid any of my american friends get misinterpreted by a cop, because according to some, that's grounds for immediate execution or at least punishment under law.
This philosophy IS the problem.
IcksterYou said you hate that cops are untrained and that the cop acted improperly. The rest of your comment is suggesting that his actions were possibly justified. What exactly is your point?
The scariest part to me is that you can read my whole comment and think I'm defending the cop.
What I'm talking about is things that happen because a cop is poorly trained or undertrained, and I said that several times.
But go ahead and pull a couple phrases out of context if you get off that way.
MaxWilderMy point is that we have become accustomed to these dangerous escalations because of bad training, so much so that they are getting predictable, not justifiable. Even so, I still think there are elements we can't see about the situation from this single point of view video.
Pardon me for trying to have some nuance. Next time I'll rant about crooked cops and avoid implying that the issue might not always be perfectly clear.
bmacs27says...I think this is similar to many victim blaming conversations. You are trying to offer practical advice to avoid confrontation with police. However, you have to admit that even if you are polite and respectful, escalations happen, particularly for people of color. When your expectation is that no matter your behavior, this encounter is likely to lead to you taking a ride in a cruiser, frustration and defiance are at least as natural a response as the officer's nerves. The man certainly had more available evidence that his day was going to end badly than the officer had evidence of imminent threat and justification for the use of force.
My point is that we have become accustomed to these dangerous escalations because of bad training, so much so that they are getting predictable, not justifiable. Even so, I still think there are elements we can't see about the situation from this single point of view video.
Pardon me for trying to have some nuance. Next time I'll rant about crooked cops and avoid implying that the issue might not always be perfectly clear.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.