Tag Archives: racial profiling

Civil Rights Lawsuit

Los Angeles Police Face Civil Rights Lawsuit Over Teen’s Alleged Racial Profiling

An 18-year-old Black man has filed a civil rights lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles, claiming he was racially profiled and violently detained by police officers while still a minor. The complaint, lodged in Los Angeles Superior Court on Monday, names the city as defendant and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

Lawsuit Alleges Pattern of Profiling

The plaintiff, Jeramiah Burge, states in his filing that officers targeted him because of his age and race. “Burge was racially profiled as a criminal and a gang member based on being a teenager, young and Black,” the suit alleges.

Burge contends that what began as an ordinary evening visit to family in South Los Angeles turned into a traumatic confrontation with law enforcement.

Story Highlights

  • Plaintiff: 18-year-old Jeramiah Burge

  • Filed: Civil rights lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court

  • Defendant: City of Los Angeles

  • Key Allegations: Racial profiling, assault, battery, negligence, excessive force

  • Incident: June 30, 2024, South Los Angeles

  • Main Claims: Officers questioned Burge about gang ties and weapons, then used force

  • Relief Sought: Unspecified compensatory and punitive damages

Evening in South Los Angeles Turns Into Detention

According to the lawsuit, Burge and his mother were visiting friends on the evening of June 30, 2024. When his mother went into a store, he waited in the passenger seat of a friend’s car and spoke on the phone.

At that point, the complaint states, two Los Angeles police officers — one male and one female — approached the car. One allegedly asked him, “Are you a gang banger?” Another followed up by asking whether he had a gun in the vehicle.

Burge says he replied “no” to both questions. The filing claims that despite his answers, the officers ordered him to exit the car, pushed him against the hood, and repeatedly told him to stop resisting. The lawsuit asserts that he was not resisting at any time.

Use of Force Detailed in Complaint

The court filing goes on to describe a series of actions Burge says were unprovoked. According to the lawsuit, the officers kicked his feet out from under him, causing him to fall. He had a recently fractured shoulder at the time and says the officers denied his request to call his mother.

The complaint further alleges that additional officers arrived at the scene, threw him to the ground again, threatened to shoot him with a stun gun, slapped him multiple times in the face, used the stun gun on his chest several times, and placed him in a chokehold, making it hard for him to breathe.

He was hospitalized with injuries, the suit states, and when his mother returned about 30 minutes later, officers allegedly refused to tell her what had happened.

Possible Video Evidence and Continuing Impact

Burge’s lawsuit says he believes body-worn camera footage and nearby surveillance cameras recorded the incident. He maintains he had done nothing wrong to justify being detained, arrested or subjected to excessive force.

The complaint also details ongoing harm, including loss of past and future income, fear, anxiety, headaches, sleep disturbance and difficulty concentrating.

City Response Pending

A representative for the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the civil rights lawsuit.

The case highlights ongoing public debates in Los Angeles about racial profiling, use of force, and police accountability — topics that have drawn national attention and legal action in recent years.

Appreciating your time:

We appreciate you taking the time to read our most recent article! We appreciate your opinions and would be delighted to hear them. We value your opinions as we work hard to make improvements and deliver material that you find interesting.

Post a Comment:

In the space provided for comments below, please share your ideas, opinions, and suggestions. We can better understand your interests thanks to your input, which also guarantees that the material we offer will appeal to you. Get in Direct Contact with Us: Please use our “Contact Us” form if you would like to speak with us or if you have any special questions. We are open to questions, collaborations, and, of course, criticism. To fill out our contact form, click this link.

Stay Connected:

Don’t miss out on future updates and articles.

Gun Detection Tech Faces Heat for Failing D.C. and Focusing on Black Communities

A teenager was gunned down outside Roosevelt High School in Washington, D.C.—but the city’s multi-million-dollar ShotSpotter system failed to detect the fatal gunfire. Once praised as a smart weapon against street violence, the system’s silence in this tragic moment has reignited fierce debate. With no alert sent, no fast response followed. As spending soars past $5 million, questions now swirl around missed shootings, vague oversight, and vanishing sensor data. Is this high-priced promise of safety merely an illusion? The city’s trust in its digital ear is hanging by a thread.

🔹 STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • Fatal Flaw: ShotSpotter failed to detect gunfire that killed a teenager outside Roosevelt High

  • Multi-Million Dollar Spend: D.C. has paid over $5.16 million to ShotSpotter’s parent company since 2016

  • No Alert, No Rush: Police treat unconfirmed ShotSpotter alerts like traffic complaints

  • Missing Data: MPD admits it doesn’t track sensor locations or match alerts with confirmed shootings

  • Wider Controversy: Other U.S. cities have dropped ShotSpotter over accuracy and civil rights concerns

On a quiet afternoon in May 2023, the sound of gunfire shattered the calm near Roosevelt High School in Petworth, a neighborhood in Washington, D.C. Seventeen-year-old Jefferson Luna-Perez lay fatally wounded in the parking lot. It was a crime that should have activated an alert from the city’s high-tech ShotSpotter gun detection system—designed precisely for moments like this. But the system registered nothing.

Just a few hundred feet away, one of ShotSpotter’s acoustic sensors stood silent, despite being well within its 1,200-foot detection range. The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) later confirmed the technology failed to detect the gunfire. By the time officers arrived, Luna-Perez was unconscious and unresponsive. He was transported to a nearby hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries.

This tragic oversight has thrown a spotlight once again on a system that has long promised quick detection and faster responses to gun violence—but has yet to prove it consistently delivers. The D.C. government has spent millions of dollars on ShotSpotter over two decades, but mounting evidence suggests the return on that investment remains unclear, both in terms of lives saved and crimes solved.

The idea behind ShotSpotter is deceptively simple. Sensors mounted on rooftops across the city listen continuously for the distinct acoustic fingerprint of gunfire. When detected, the system should send an alert to local police within seconds. In theory, this allows officers to respond even if no 911 call comes in—potentially reaching victims sooner, securing crime scenes faster, and recovering evidence before it disappears.

But the death of Luna-Perez—and the silence of the system designed to protect residents like him—raises uncomfortable questions: What good is a gunshot detection network if it can’t detect actual gunshots? And how many more incidents might it be missing?

Investigative reporters from City Paper and the Investigative Reporting Workshop examined MPD’s internal crime data alongside ShotSpotter alert records spanning over a decade, from January 2014 through January 2025. They discovered at least three confirmed shooting incidents in ShotSpotter-covered areas that the system failed to register. It’s a sobering reminder that what’s being detected may only be part of the story.

The larger concern is the systemic gap in oversight. MPD does maintain an archive of audio data captured by ShotSpotter sensors, but it does not keep a log matching these alerts to confirmed shootings. That means officials have no reliable way to distinguish between real gunfire and similar sounds like fireworks or car backfires. Despite public assurances, the precision of the system remains in question.

Even more concerning is that the police department no longer seems to know where all the sensors are located. In a response to a 2023 Freedom of Information Act request, MPD revealed that SoundThinking Inc.—the California-based company that licenses the ShotSpotter technology—had stopped providing exact sensor placement information to the District. “MPD contracts for a coverage area, but MPD does not have sensor placement information,” the agency wrote. It is unclear when this critical data sharing stopped or why.

ShotSpotter was first installed in D.C. in 2005, with backing from the FBI as part of a broader “Building a Safer DC” initiative. Its early deployment focused on the Seventh District, which includes many parts of Wards 7 and 8—areas long grappling with high crime rates and systemic inequality. Over time, the network expanded to cover roughly 17 square miles across six of the city’s seven police districts.

Since 2016 alone, city records show D.C. has paid more than $5.16 million to SoundThinking. In 2019, the city even upgraded and widened the system’s footprint. Then, in 2021, ShotSpotter opened its East Coast headquarters in Washington. Mayor Muriel Bowser attended the opening and praised the system as a tool for enhancing public safety. “ShotSpotter allows us to make the best use of our police resources,” she said at the time.

Still, critics have not been quiet. Nationally, the technology has faced growing scrutiny over its accuracy and implications for civil rights. Several cities—including Chicago and San Diego—have terminated or reconsidered their contracts with ShotSpotter following independent audits and community pushback. The system has been accused of disproportionately targeting communities of color due to the location of its sensors and its role in facilitating aggressive policing tactics.

When a reporter asked Mayor Bowser in 2021 whether she was concerned ShotSpotter might contribute to overpolicing in Wards 7 and 8, she responded with a curt, “No.”

Yet, the incident involving Luna-Perez suggests that D.C.’s continued reliance on this system may require more than just a political defense. It may demand a thorough re-evaluation of whether the technology is achieving its core promise—to save lives.

The question remains: If a young man can be shot in broad daylight near a school and the multi-million-dollar detection system doesn’t notice, what exactly is it doing?

As concerns grow and the data gap widens, D.C. residents are left wondering whether the tools meant to protect them are truly up to the task—or simply giving the illusion of safety.

Appreciating your time:

We appreciate you taking the time to read our most recent article! We appreciate your opinions and would be delighted to hear them. We value your opinions as we work hard to make improvements and deliver material that you find interesting.

Post a Comment:

In the space provided for comments below, please share your ideas, opinions, and suggestions. We can better understand your interests thanks to your input, which also guarantees that the material we offer will appeal to you. Get in Direct Contact with Us: Please use our “Contact Us” form if you would like to speak with us or if you have any special questions. We are open to questions, collaborations, and, of course, criticism. To fill out our contact form, click this link.

Stay Connected:

Don’t miss out on future updates and articles.