Click here if you’re having trouble viewing this video on a mobile device.
SAN PABLO — A woman has filed a claim against San Pablo police claiming emotional harm and other injuries after two officers threatened to arrest her earlier this year in what turned out to be a case of mistaken identity.
Guadalupe Tamayo is seeking more than $25,000 against the city for the officers’ actions on March 18 in the Starbucks at Princeton Plaza, 3300 San Pablo Dam Road. The claim states that Tamayo suffered injuries “including but not limited to emotional harm, humiliation, embarrassment and threats.”
Police responded to the claim by posting footage of the incident on social media Wednesday. What followed the incident, they said in a statement delivered with the footage, “was an immediate apology by our officer to Ms. Tamayo.”
Police said Tamayo also demanded she be arrested.
It all went down on March 18 when two officers responded to a report asking for assistance with a suspicious vehicle and a complaint that a person banned from the Starbucks had entered it. Officers spoke with Tamayo and another man and based on the conversation with the employee, “believed Ms. Tamayo was not allowed to be inside the business,” police said.
“Our officer asked her to leave the establishment, and she verbally resisted that order,” police continued. “Followings several minutes of conversation aimed at a peaceful resolution of the situation, our officer spoke again with the employee, and it was at this point he learned that Ms. Tamayo was not the banned individual.”
An apology followed, but Tamayo did not accept it.
According to the claim, the officers responded to the man’s claim that the woman Starbucks sought to eject was not Tamayo by saying that Starbucks “did not want” Tamayo in there, “either.” Footage of the incident backs the woman’s claim.
Tamayo and the man insisted the officer misunderstood the employees and that she wasn’t the the one banned from the restaurant. The officer persisted.
“I’m just telling you what they told me,” the officer said. Footage shows the officer saying, “So you can get up and go, or you’re going to be arrested for trespassing. What would you like?”
Police body cameras captured the incident, and Tamayo also recorded the incident on her phone.
As the officers’ continued to threaten her with arrest, Tamayo repeats the word “lawsuit” and asks her friend if the person banned from the Starbucks “is Latin like me?”
“Now all Latinas look the same?” she said.
As the drama played out, one officer told his partner to watch Tamayo, then asks a barista to talk privately in the rear of the restaurant. Once there, he asks the employee if Tamayo is the woman Starbucks employees were trying to eject.
The barista responds, “No, that’s not the lady. She left. She ran away when we called.”
“Oh, that’s not her?” the officer replied. “Ohhh, I’m sorry.”
That officer then returns to Tamayo’s table and apologizes, but Tamayo responds: “You said you were going to arrest me. Go ahead.”
“The actions of the San Pablo Police officers in threatening to arrest Ms. Tamayo in a place of public accommodation within approximately one minute of approaching her table were unlawful and violated her rights under federal and California state laws,” the claim states. “The officers did not have probable cause to arrest Ms. Tamayo. Their actions were intended to intimidate and threaten her and interfered with her ability to access a place of public accommodation. The officers conspired to with Starbucks employees to deprive Ms. Tamayo of her civil rights by discriminating against her on the basis of race, ethnicity and/or national origin.”
Starbucks officials were not available immediately for comment.
