{"active":false,"first_name":"Viet","last_name":"Cao","race":"Asian","gender":"Male","rank":"SGT","command":{"command":"PROPCLK","assignment_date":"2019-03-29","id":"106"},"shield_no":1925,"ended_date":"2023-06-02","taxid":"928012","complaint_ids":[200604318],"command_history":[{"command":"013 PCT","id":"13pct"}],"appt_date":"2001-07-02","middle_initial":"W","shield_no_history":[279],"lawsuits":[{"name":"Iglesia, Mario vs P.O. Andersen, Robert E., et al.","start_date":"2014-10-15","disposition_date":"2015-03-13","payout_amount":64800,"disposition":"Settlement","docket":"14CV02266","court":"U.S. District Court - Eastern District NY","officer_name":"Cao, Viet W.","summary":"On November 3, 2012, one of four plaintiffs was lawfully exiting a bodega when police officers unlawfully assaulted him, including by striking him in his face and chest with closed fists. Without probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe he had committed any crime or offense, officers threw the plaintiff up against a car, handcuffed and maced him. Three other plaintiffs started to record the officers' acts on their cellphones. Then, a police officer ran toward a second plaintiff, threw him to the ground, took his cellphone and handcuffed him. After the second plaintiff was on the ground and handcuffed, a police officer punched him squarely in his face several times while other officers kicked him. A third plaintiff was rushed by an EMT worker who smacked his phone out of his hands. Police officers too rushed the third plaintiff, threw him to the ground, and began punching and kicking him. Officers punched him in his face several times. A fourth plaintiff became scared and stopped recording. As he stood silently witnessing the attacks, officers handcuffed him for no lawful reason. Upon information and belief, officers purposefully damaged plaintiffs’ cell phones in an effort to prevent recovery of the footage. Officers ultimately arrested all plaintiffs, without legal basis.  \n\nPlaintiffs were taken to the precinct, where the officers falsely informed employees of the DA’s Office that they had observed Plaintiffs commit various crimes including felony assault, and prepared false paperwork including an arrest report. Plaintiffs were arraigned and, after being held for approximately 24 hours, were released on their own recognizance. The charges against Plaintiff 2 were dismissed in their entirety on May 31, 2013. After returning to court approximately nine times over the span of nearly 15 months, the other three plaintiffs accepted adjournments in contemplation of dismissal on March 13, 2014. Plaintiffs suffered damage as a result of officers’ actions. The complaint names the following NYPD officers as defendants: PO Robert E. Andersen, PO Salvator LoPiccolo, Detective Victor Falcon, PO Anthony Nuccio, PO John Anastasakos, PO Luis Gonzalez, Sergeant Viet Cao, and POs John and Jane Doe 4 through 10 (the names John and Jane Doe being fictitious, as the true names were unknown at the time the complaint was filed).","documents":[{"url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.354859/gov.uscourts.nyed.354859.13.0.pdf","type":"complaint"}],"url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6294284/iglesia-v-lopiccolo/"},{"name":"Oquendo, Joseph vs City of New York, et al.","start_date":"2014-05-13","payout_amount":0,"disposition":"","docket":"14CV02582","court":"U.S. District Court - Eastern District NY","officer_name":"Cao, Viet W.","summary":"On May 1, 2011, Sgt. Viet W. Cao arrested and charged Plaintiff with Driving While Intoxicated (“DWI”). Plaintiff was not intoxicated and was not operating his vehicle in an impaired condition. Plaintiff had fallen asleep in his car at a red light; the vehicle stood stationary and did not move during this time. At no time did Plaintiff exhibit any signs of intoxication and/or being under the influence. There was an open beer can in the car, but the beer belonged to a passenger Plaintiff had dropped off before falling asleep at the red light. Plaintiff told Sgt. Cao, on several occasions, that Sgt. Cao should/could secure the beer can and check it for fingerprints and/or DNA evidence. Plaintiff, himself a police officer, advised Sgt. Cao that such tests would prove that Plaintiff never touched or drank from the beer can found in his vehicle. Sgt. Cao unreasonably disregarded this evidence. Instead, Sgt. Cao ordered other uniformed officers on the scene to place Plaintiff under arrest and to take Plaintiff into police custody for “having an open container” in his vehicle. Plaintiff questioned Sgt. Cao’s decision to place him under arrest for having an “open container,” because having an open container is regarded as a violation in New York State, wherein the accused is usually given an appearance ticket and released at the scene. \n\nThroughout the processing of Plaintiff's case, Sgt. Cao continued to disregard important exculpatory evidence. At the precinct, Sgt. Cao, as well as Captain Daniel Sosnowik, also violated Plaintiff’s 6th Amendment right to counsel, as well as Plaintiff’s contractual rights to confer with a union delegate when being arrested. Sgt. Cao and Captain Sosnowik provided false information about Plaintiff and his case, leading to a number of consequences for Plaintiff, including criminal and administrative charges. Plaintiff had his license to operate a motor vehicle suspended or revoked, and had his weapons/privileges confiscated. Plaintiff was forced - against his will - to enter into an inpatient treatment program from substance abusers. Plaintiff was forced to defend himself from false criminal and administrative charges for over two years. On April 9, 2013, Plaintiff was acquitted of the criminal charges, but continued to suffer negative consequences beyond that date. In addition to failing to take the exculpatory evidence into account, such as surveillance video footage, NYPD also failed to properly discipline the defendant officers for their actions.","documents":[{"url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.355486.1.0.pdf","type":"complaint"}],"url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4323312/oquendo-v-city-of-new-york/"},{"name":"Thomas, Justin vs City of New York, et al.","start_date":"2013-11-06","disposition_date":"2014-02-03","payout_amount":15000,"disposition":"Settlement","docket":"13CV06139","court":"U.S. District Court - Eastern District NY","officer_name":"Cao, Viet W.","summary":"On April 19, 2013, plaintiff was filming the exterior of the 72nd Precinct on 4th Ave, Brooklyn, for b-roll footage for his senior class video project when he was approached by defendant Sgt. Cao. Cao demanded plaintiff stop filming the exterior of the precinct. Plaintiff's friend stood beside him and filmed the conversation between plaintiff and Cao. Cao saw the friend filming and demanded the friend turn off the camera. The friend continued to film and repeatedly stated he was not interfering with an arrest. Cao grabbed plaintiff's upper arm and jerked him forward, stating he was under arrest. Cao called for assistance through his handheld transceiver and held plaintiff by the upper arm for a couple minutes until Doe came to the parking lot to assist the arrest. Doe grabbed and shut off the video camera, ending the recording. Doe removed a memory card from the camera to destroy the recording. The camera had two cards recording and Doe did not take the second card. Plaintiff remained detained in the parking lot until he was rear-cuffed, searched and led into the precinct, until he was released with a desk appearance ticket. When plaintiff went to court, he learned no charges were filed, and he left the courthouse.","documents":[{"url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.348758.1.0.pdf","type":"complaint"}],"url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4322955/thomas-v-city-of-new-york/"}],"image":"https://www.50-a.org/images/officer/8FWF-viet-cao.jpg","id":"8FWF","url":"https://www.50-a.org/officer/8FWF"}