Drug War

Police Stand on Volunteer's Neck, Destroy Surveillance Cameras During Dispensary Raid


Undercover cop smashing pot shop's camera

Dorian Brooks had no choice but to let officers walk all over him—literally.

"I felt 300 pounds on my neck," Brooks told reporters at NBC Los Angeles. Brooks, a volunteer employee at THC Downtown Collective, a Long Beach, CA medical marijuana dispensary, was arrested June 19 during a police raid of the pot shop. Footage from the dispensary's security camera reveals a brutal bust, including cops walking on Brooks' back and standing on his neck, while officers prepare to handcuff the suspect. "I just felt violated and disrespected," said the 28-year-old volunteer, one of five arrested in the raid. "We got beat up and arrested for a citation that's equivalent to someone jaywalking."

Brooks filed a lawsuit against the Long Beach PD this week, claiming the police used unnecessary violence in the raid, on top of destroying property and evidence. Surveillance videos show an undercover cop smashing the store's video camera with a metal rod, while post-raid footage reveals complete destruction, with knocked over cabinets, boxes and files strewn across the floor.

Although police admit the dispensary was compliant with California state law, Long Beach PD said the raid was ordered because the store was operating without a city permit. The attorney for Dorian Brooks, however, argued that the city of Long Beach denied owners a permit, and makes it increasingly difficult for dispensaries like THC Downtown Collective to get one.

More news on medical marijuana here.

Footage from the June 19 raid:

NEXT: Your Tax Dollars at Work: Telling Kids to Do Jumping Jack During TV Commercials

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Sigh. Procedures were followed.

    1. They are now rewriting procedures to destroy the cameras first and then abuse the suspects.

    2. They are now rewriting procedures to destroy the cameras first and then abuse the suspects.

      1. I can confirm it appears in the SOPs twice.

  2. Fuckers.

    Dude appeared to be entirely compliant, WTF is the explanation for stepping on his back and neck?

    Oh yeah, fuck you, thats why.

    1. According to LBPD: "A thorough review into what occurred during that operation will be conducted once all of the facts have been collected. This is a personnel matter and we are unable to discuss any further details," Lisa Massacani, with LB police, wrote in a statement.

      A personnel matter? Destruction of evidence sounds like a fucking criminal matter to me.

      1. Aggravated assault is also a felony. Since there was NO necessary use of force, it shouldn't just be "excessive", it should be felonious.

        1. Look, the HR lady is reviewing the operation. That makes it a personnel matter and they can't discuss it.

          If the distric attorney was reviewing it, it would be ongoing criminal investigation and they couldn't discuss it.

          If any of the officers were injured in the operation, it would fall under HIPPA and they couldn't discuss it.

          Pretty much the only way they can discuss embarassing arrests is if it is easy to shift the felonies onto some black guy.

          1. Look, the HR lady is reviewing the operation. That makes it a personnel matter and they can't discuss it.

            And when the IRS collects a fine, that makes it a tax.

      2. "personnel matter" is the new "ongoing investigation".

        Writing that shit into the police union CBA was a stroke of genius. Everybody wins, well except the little people.

    2. At least it wasn't forever.

  3. Cop at the 0:30 mark with his hand on his gun. I thought he was going to shoot out the camera, wild-west style.

    1. Cameras? In the Wild West?

      1. You know what I mean.

  4. God forbid someone from the city justs walks in and tells them they have to close because they don't have a permit.

    1. Violent potheads might eat their face off. Better to send out the Brute Squad.

    2. Dude, what's the fun in that? The point of arbitrarily enforced laws is to be able to enforce them when you feel like fucking someone, or you don't like them.

  5. I think we are now beyond any colorable suggestion that medical-marijuana policy is being driven by voter reaction. All indicators are that the politicians are far behind the voting public's thinking on this issue. We must look elsewhere for an explanation.

    I think we are at a point at which the implicit threat of police violence, sabotage, and insubordination are intimidating civilian politicians. We've gone "full Pakistan," on the drug war, with a thug-infected law enforcement subculture playing the part of the ISI. Any credible political threat to the prison-industrial complex is liable to provoke a 'black' response from the industry's beneficiaries.

    1. It's being driven by voter apathy, actually. If voters looked at this and said, "what a bunch of fucksticks, I'm voting everybody in charge of this city out next time around" things would change right quick. Yes, I know the election isn't immediate, but fear would keep the officials in line.

      You can't start complaining about police intimidating "civilians" in govt until the civilians in govt stop licking their boots.

      1. If voters looked at this and said, "what a bunch of fucksticks, I'm voting everybody in charge of this city out next time around" things would change right quick.

        No things wouldn't. Vote out one batch of fucksticks and you get a new batch of fucksticks.

        The problem isn't so much the people in power, but the kind of person who seeks power.

        They're all fucksticks.

        1. It's much easier to run for local office than something higher up, so that's less of a problem. If the people of Long Beach gave a shit they would be able to put a stop to this.

        2. It's fucksticks all the way down.

  6. If he didn't want his neck stepped on maybe he shouldn't have had one.

    1. I did see the guy's neck resist the cop's shoe for a second or two.

  7. Pinhole cameras are what, $40 these days? I mean seriously, WHY are you going to have all your cameras that conspicuous knowing what a dangerous business you're in.

    1. Conspicuous cameras are supposed to deter criminals.

      I guess the shop owners didn't anticipate the police destroying the cameras and then systematically destroying their business.

      1. If they're in the med MJ business, shouldn't that be foremost on their mind? If not the PD, the DEA.

        I guess they should have both.

      2. Yeah if I were to run one of these, obvious cameras to deter shoplifting, hold-ups, etc... Then, pinhole cameras whose footage is saved to somewhere offsite, to collect the actions of the police-state thugs.

    2. You want the cameras visible so potential criminals leave you alone. On the other hand, cops apparently can just smash them.

    3. You want one camera in a highly-visible location. Then you want a bunch of other cameras where they aren't visible.

      1. Yep.

      2. I would nix having the one highly visible camera. You can buy dummy cameras for like $10-20 a pop. I figure, have a bunch of dummy cameras to attract the ire of thugs, so when they're smashed you don't lose anything valuable. Since the hidden cameras should be set to record every inch of the place anyway, you won't be losing any coverage if one or all of your fake cameras go, but you still have the deterrence that visible cameras give.

  8. Looks like someone wasn't getting their 'protection' money.

    1. Right. What, exactly, is the difference between this and a bunch of mob thugs trashing a place because they didn't get their protection money? The only difference I can see is that they didn't kneecap the guy.

  9. How many businesses in LB have had the same kind of treatment for operating without a license? I am betting the others get a visit from a geek with a clipboard who tells them to stop operating, or they just get a letter in the mail.

    On the other hand, the article doesnt really discuss this. Did this guy get ten letters already?
    Even if he got 100 letters, it is no justification for feloniously assaulting the store worker.
    What a bunch of goons.

  10. Those cops really messed that place up looking for the video. Gotta love offsite storage.

    1. "The files are in the computer?!"

    2. I hope every one of them fucking roasts. Cocksuckers.

  11. This is happening despite the existence of Team Blue power in government.

    In fact, they're complicit in it.

    1. ..and them being in pretty much perpetual power in CA.

  12. The War On Citizens marches on.

  13. See, this is proof that marijuana leads to violence. /drugwarrior

  14. If the LBPD does this to a dispensary without a city permit, I'd hate to see what they do to an illegal hot dog stand.

  15. If you are the person recording the "after" video with a hand held camera, please slow down a bit. Especially with the panning. Hold the camera on specific things for a couple of seconds at least. You want to show some specifics of the aftermath. Jerky blurry scene changes don't really help with details, they just illustrate the general messiness of the after effects.

  16. Why is Reason cooperating with the bad guys by not showing this vandal's face?

    It's bad enough when police hide their faces or badge numbers (which is an admission that they're doing wrong and know it). We should never cooperate with their doing so.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.