Opinion
Civil No: 03 CV 1775-B(BLM).
April 12, 2006
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
After careful consideration of all of the testimony and evidence presented in this case as well as the arguments made by both parties' counsel the Court makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff filed suit on June 10, 2003 against Defendants, Darryl Emerson, the City of San Diego, and the San Diego Police Department, alleging that Defendants violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment by using excessive force, and committed the common law torts of battery, false arrest, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The matter was tried to the District Court on September 27-29, 2005.2. Plaintiff John Padilla is a forty-two year old Corrections Officer employed at the Richard J, Donovan Correctional Facility, San Diego, California.
3. Officer Padilla served three years in the United States Army, receiving an honorable discharge in 1985.
4. Defendant Darryl Emerson has been employed by the San Diego Police Department for a period of nineteen years. Prior to that, he served in the United States Marine Corps. for eighteen years and was honorably discharged in May 1985.
5. On June 11, 2002, Officer Emerson was conducting traffic enforcement in the 6900 Block of Otay Mesa Road. Officer Emerson was working at that location because residents had complained of vehicles speeding in the area.
6. At or about 1:45 p.m. on June 11, 2002, Officer Emerson was stationed at the 6900 block of Otay Mesa Road and determined by use of his laser gun that the driver of a 1995 Ford pickup truck traveling eastbound on Otay Mesa Road was speeding.
7. Per his usual custom, Officer Emerson walked to the middle of the road to flag the driver down.
8. The driver, later determined to be Officer John Padilla, ignored Officer Emerson's command and continued in an easterly direction at a high rate of speed.
9. Officer Emerson pursued Officer Padilla and positioned his motorcycle directly behind the Ford pickup truck.
10. Officer Emerson employed both lights and siren in an effort to alert Officer Padilla to his presence and have Officer Padilla stop the vehicle.
11. In order to ensure that Officer Padilla was aware of his presence, Officer Emerson positioned his motorcycle on the left hand side of the traffic lane and in direct line with the vehicle's side view mirror.
12. Rather than pull the vehicle to the side of the road, Officer Padilla continued down Otay Mesa Road, and finally turned on to Donovan Prison Road.
13. Officer Emerson chased Officer Padilla for more than two miles, with speeds exceeding 80 miles per hour.
14. As Officer Padilla headed into the prison grounds, he was forced to stop as traffic on both sides of the road was backed up.
15. Officer Emerson stopped his motorcycle at the front edge of the Ford pickup.
16. Officer Emerson had a number of concerns, including a strong suspicion that, because of the actions of the driver, the vehicle might be stolen or the driver might be involved in some other criminal activity.
17. Because of Officer Padilla's apparent attempt to evade detention and the possibility of criminal activity, Officer Emerson approached the vehicle with his hand on his service weapon. The weapon, however, was never unholstered and drawn.
18. Officer Emerson then ordered Officer Padilla to exit his vehicle.
19. Rather than comply with Officer Emerson's commands, Officer Padilla remained in the vehicle and demanded to know why he was being ordered to exit the vehicle.
20. Officer Padilla refused to leave his vehicle and, as a consequence, Officer Emerson reached into the front seat, took Officer Padilla by the arm, guided him forcibly from the vehicle, and placed him face first against the side of the vehicle to the rear of the driver's side door.
21. Officer Emerson continued to hold Officer Padilla facing the truck while he conducted a pat down search for weapons.
22. During the pat down search, Officer Emerson immobilized Officer Padilla's arms behind his back by holding plaintiff's thumbs with his left hand. Upon completing the pat down with his right hand Officer Emerson leaned against Officer Padilla and spoke loudly into his ear.
23. The entire incident, from the point in time when Officer Padilla exited the vehicle, until Officer Emerson concluded his leaning against Officer Padilla, took between five and fifteen seconds. At no time did Officer Emerson "slam" any portion of Officer Padilla's body into the truck.
24. At the time Officer Emerson was standing with Officer Padilla facing the truck, four corrections officers arrived on the scene: Sergeant Coleman, Lieutenant Moreno, Sergeant Ramrakha, and Sergeant Wall.
25. Sergeant Ramrakha was one of the first correctional officers to arrive on the scene. Sergeant Ramrakha observed Officer Emerson standing immediately behind and leaning over Officer Padilla, speaking into Officer Padilla's ear, but could not hear what was being said.
26. When Sergeant Coleman arrived at the scene Officer Emerson was walking away from Officer Padilla. Officer Emerson appeared agitated and was speaking in a raised voice.
27. According to Sergeant Ramrakha Officer Emerson did not use an unreasonable amount of force and Officer Padilla did not complain to Sergeant Ramrakha about any discomfort at the time. None of the other Correctional Officers at the scene witnessed any contact between Officer Emerson and Officer Padilla.
28. Although Officer Padilla committed a number of penal and traffic violations. Officer Emerson only issued a traffic citation for the limited infraction of a speeding violation (75 m.p.h.).
29. Officer Emerson detained Officer Padilla for the limited purpose of issuing him a traffic citation for a speeding violation.
30. After receiving the traffic citation, Officer Padilla reported for work at the Donovan State Prison and completed his shift as a Corrections Officer.
31. The injuries Officer Padilla complained of were not caused by Officer Emerson leaning against him.
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Excessive force claims are analyzed under the "objective reasonableness" standard of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394 (1989); see also Reed v. Hoy, 891 F.2d 1421, 1426 (9th Cir. 1989) cert. denied 501 U.S. 1250 (1991) (holding that claims of excessive force are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard rather than the substantive due process standard of the Fourteenth Amendment). The Ninth Circuit has further refined this analysis, finding that any use of force greater than that necessary to accomplish legitimate police purposes is necessarily unreasonable and therefore, excessive.P.B. v. Koch, 96 F.3d 1298, 1303-4 (9th Cir. 1996).
A plaintiff bringing an excessive force claim may recover nominal damages, even if the plaintiff suffered no actual damages, if the defendant officer violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights without a privilege or immunity. Wilks v. Reyes, 5 F.3d 412, 416 (9th Cir. 1993).
2. Qualified immunity protects government officials from suit unless they violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).
The Supreme Court has determined that the qualified immunity analysis should proceed in two steps. First, the court must determine whether the facts establish a constitutional violation.Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (citing Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 207 (2001)). If the facts show that there is no constitutional violation the defendant is entitled to immunity under the first prong of the Saucier analysis. If the facts show that the defendant's conduct did violate a constitutional right the defendant is still entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established at the time. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201.
The question of whether a right is "clearly established" is not one of a general nature, but one of a more particularized and relevant sense. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202; Hanlon v. Berger, 526 U.S. 808 (1999) (holding that it was a Fourth Amendment violation for officers to allow a news crew to accompany them on to private property and record the officers' conduct while executing a search warrant, but that the right was not clearly established at the time).
3. In this case, defendant's conduct in removing plaintiff from his vehicle and conducting a pat down search was objectively reasonable under the circumstances and did not involve a use of excessive force. As such it was not violative of plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights. Therefore defendant has qualified immunity as to that conduct. However, the Court finds that the subsequent lean against plaintiff and yelling into his right ear was not necessary to accomplish the legitimate police purpose of detaining plaintiff and conducting a pat down search. This conduct violated plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights and, even if no injury resulted, plaintiff would be entitled to recover a nominal damages award unless defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.
The Court has found no case authority, and the parties have presented none, holding that an officer who has legitimately detained a suspect violates that suspect's constitutional rights when the officer leans against the suspect, causing no injury. The Court finds that it was not clearly established at the time that Officer Emerson detained Officer Padilla that such conduct violated the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the Court finds that the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity for his act of leaning against the plaintiff under the circumstances of this case.
Judgment shall be entered in favor of the defendants and against plaintiff John Padilla on all claims of the complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED