SALT LAKE CITY (News4Utah) – Angela Tandy-Trammel had no idea who was knocking loudly at her door.
It was 2016, and the incessant knocking continued at both her front and back doors. She eventually learned it was Pleasant Grove police. What happened next had led to a federal lawsuit filed against police. The lawsuit claimed her civil rights were violated during the confrontation by police.
Tandy-Trammel said no one identified themselves when the knocking started. She said the knocking intensified and continued for several minutes both at her front and back doors.
“I was terrified,” said Tandy-Trammel.
That’s when she took out her cell phone and began recording. Eventually, she learned it was Pleasant Grove police.
A police officer told her they were looking for a woman named Angela Tandy-Trammel on behalf of Wendover police.
They continued their conversation with police outside and Tandy-Trammel inside her home.
According to the federal lawsuit the officer “claimed in his report that he and the (other officer) knocked for ’20 to 20 minutes’ without any response.” The lawsuit claimed the officer “yelled” at the person inside through the closed door.
In the lawsuit: “‘He (officer) stated that, if (woman) “continue[d] to refuse to open the door and identify herself,’ they would apply for a search warrant giving them permission to make entry into the residence. Inside the residence, (woman) was confused and concerned about what was happening, including why the first set of officers had initially walked around and knocked on the back door instead of her front door, why they were now banging so aggressively on both of the doors and windows, why they were back at the house when the first set of officers had said they were going to simply refer the matter back to the Nevada agency and she had advised them that her attorney would reach out to the police department phone number that (officer) had given her, and that (officer) had said he ‘understood’ why she felt the situation was ‘really strange’ and that she was ‘uncomfortable.'”
Even though she still refused to identify herself she opened her door. A glass screen door allowed them to continue their conversation but the door remained locked.
She wanted to learn more about why Wendover police wanted to talk to her.
On the police body camera, Tandy-Tamera asks them for more information about the case.
Police: “All I know is that it was an assault.”
Tandy-Trammel: “An assault?”
Police: “Yes.”
Tandy-Trammel: “An assault on who?”
Police: “I’m not going to debate it because I don’t know all the details.”
2nd Officer: “We don’t have all that information.”
Police: “But I need you to come out and get your information.”
2nd Officer: “Or we’re going to take you to jail. It’s just that simple. If you don’t want to come out we’ll come in and get you.”
As she remained inside her home, she told the officers she would go look for her driver’s license. She went to her vehicle through the back door. Police spotted her and surrounded her. As she began searching for her driver’s license police made their move.
On the police body camera recording they made it clear of their intentions.
Police: “I’ll tell you what we’re going to do here.”
Tandy-Trammel: “No, no, no. You cannot take my phone. What are you doing?”
Police: “You are under arrest.”
After she was put in handcuffs, police found her driver’s license and confirmed the was the person Wendover police were looking for.
Again on the police body camera recording, they tell her it didn’t have to end this way.
Police: “You are the one that is exaggerating the situation. You are the one based on your actions not us. All he needed was basic info and we would have been on our way. Now you’re going to have to go to court.”
Tandy-Trammel was issued a citation for failing to identify herself.
But in her lawsuit, Tandy-Trammel’s attorney said as a homeowner, Tandy-Trammel’s rights were violated.
“When you are in your home, you have constitutional rights and the police cannot come up to your door and demand that you come out of your home, demand that you produce a driver’s license or even car registration,” said Karra Porter.
In the lawsuit, Porter cited Utah statute 77-7-15. “Authority of peace officer to stop and question suspect.”
The statute states: “A peace officer may stop any person in a public place when the officer has a reasonable suspicion to believe the person has committed or is in the act of committing or is attempting to commit a public offense and may demand the person’s name, address and an explanation of the person’s actions.”
Porter said the statute only applies to a “public place” and not a person’s home.
Tandy-Trammel said she is suing as a lesson to both police and homeowners.
“I just couldn’t believe this was happening,” she said. “I can’t believe that this is happening to me. It shouldn’t happen to people and this can never happen again.”
The lawsuit claimed Pleasant Grove police investigated the actions of the officers and determined policy was followed. Pleasant Grove’s city manager had no comment citing pending litigation.