A Los Angeles police captain who sued the city, alleging a fellow LAPD captain and others wrongfully conducted a search of his home in 2021 knowing that only the plaintiff’s wife and minor son would be present, will have to shore up his complaint in order for it to move ahead with all its allegations, a judge has ruled.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Richard Fruin issued his ruling Friday in the complaint brought Jan. 4 by Capt. Jonathan Tom and his spouse, Yoomi Tom. The suit also names as a defendants the Los Angeles Police Revolver and Athletic Club, where Tom bought a gun in 2019.
In his ruling, the judge said there were not enough facts at present to support Tom’s causes of action for discrimination, retaliation, failure to take corrective action, negligence, negligent supervision, false light, intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil rights violation and a violation of the Public Safety Officer’s Procedural Bill of Rights,
In their court papers, lawyers for the city allege that the Toms’ suit is “an excessive attempt to seek retribution” related to a February 2021 police search of their home in February 2021 in connection with firearms he obtained from the Athletic Club. Tom blames the department for a news story about the search, according to the attorneys for the city.
In his role as an LAPD command staff officer, Tom manages and supervises the law enforcement duties and responsibilities of about 250 officers and civilian support staff, his suit states. A third-generation Chinese-American, Tom is one of the most senior Asian-American sworn employees within the department, according to his suit.
In November 2019, Tom bought a handgun at the Athletic Club, filled out the required government forms, paid for the weapon and took possession of it after the required 10-day waiting period, the suit states. The club, located in Elysian Park, primarily serves law enforcement officers.
However, an Athletic Club assistant manager embezzled the money that Tom paid for the handgun, the suit states. In response, Captain Lillian Carranza, head of the LAPD’s Commercial Crimes Division, had interviews conducted of a number of LAPD police officers to determine if they had purchased any of the handguns that were not logged in the Athletic Club sales system and were missing and embezzled by the assistant manager, according to the suit.
Tom, who underwent several interviews, voluntarily turned over the gun he bought at the club and cooperated with investigators, the suit states. However, Carranza, her CCD investigators, and uniformed Long Beach police officers searched the Tom residence in February 2021.
The suit does not dispute the validity of the warrant, but alleges those involved “strategically waited until (Tom) was known to be at work, where he was informed by his deputy chief that a warrant authorizing searches of his home, work office, work vehicle, personal vehicles and cell phone would be executed,” according to the suit, which further states that Tom’s wife and 11-year-old son were home at the time.
All of the actions were “overtly public and intentionally planned in order to directly subject (the Toms) to maximum humiliation, judgment and isolation from their neighbors, civilian staff and subordinate officers, peers, superiors and the general public,” the suit alleges.
Officials seized 63 firearms, many of which were family heirlooms, antique rifles and shotguns that Tom had received from his father, but none were related to the investigation, the suit states. No evidence was uncovered linking Tom to any crime with the Athletic Club or the assistant manager, the suit states.
Five days after the search of his home, a newspaper article about the Athletic Club scandal “strongly implied that there was an association or conspiracy between the (assistant manager) and Tom, who has never even been charged with any crime related to the theft of firearms or embezzlement” from the club, the suit states.
The information in the article “could have only been provided by someone who wrongfully believed they had the authority to disclose the facts of a confidential CCD investigation and had intimate knowledge of all the details of the CCD investigation, namely, Carranza, or others intimately associated with the investigation,” the suit alleges.
Carranza was originally a defendant in the suit, but Tom’s lawyers dropped the part of the case against her on March 29.