SAN JOSE, Calif. (Legal Newsline) - A man who was shot at least four times after leading police on a high-speed chase during which he rammed a pedestrian and hit another police officer lost his bid to win a civil lawsuit against the city on summary judgment, after a federal court said there were enough disputed facts to take the case to trial.
Yurida Ochoa was spotted by a helicopter engaging in “sideshow activity” in front of San Jose City Hall in June 2020 and police attempted to stop his Audi after he drove away. When police turned on their lights and sirens, Ochoa sped away, hitting a woman on a scooter and knocking down an officer on his motorcycle.
Ochoa drove off again after hitting the police officer and San Jose officer Eric Mosunic chased him down a ramp into a parking garage, where the Audi was forced to stop in front of a locked gate. Mosunic parked his motorcycle behind the car but was worried he couldn’t push it back up the ramp if Ochoa tried to hit him. He approached the car and ordered Ochoa to get out but the man didn’t respond and after 30 seconds, the reverse lights lit up and Ochoa started to slowly back up the ramp.
Mosunic fired six shots into the left rear door and window of the car, and after Ochoa continued to back up, fired another volley of shots, eventually hitting Ochoa in the left arm, shoulder, and neck. He sued the city, accusing it of violating his Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force.
In an April 14 decision, the U.S. District Court in San Jose denied Ochoa’s motion for summary judgment. The court cited California’s three-step process for evaluating whether an officer’s conduct was reasonable, which looks at the severity of the plaintiff’s injuries; the threat the suspect posed and whether he was resisting arrest or attempting to escape; and “the gravity of the intrusion” on the suspect’s constitutional rights balanced against the government’s need for that intrusion.
There is no question the plaintiff met the first part of the test, the court said. But the plaintiff failed to show the officer unreasonably considered him a threat. While the video shows the car never accelerated or turned in the officer’s direction, the appeals court said, the officer had just seen Ochoa mow down a pedestrian, was trapped in a confined space and could reasonably have been concerned the car would accelerate and hit him.
The court also rejected Ochoa’s argument his collision with the pedestrian and a police officer were “temporally separate” from the final incident in the garage.
“Plaintiff could still drive, and he still refused to comply with police officer commands,” the appeals court said. “A reasonable juror could find that these events were all part of a single crime spree.”
Ochoa acknowledged he was “not completely compliant” with the officer, but said his resistance wasn’t aggressive and didn’t place the officer at risk. “A reasonable juror could find that plaintiff was continuing to use his vehicle as a deadly weapon, himself, given that he had just hit a pedestrian and a police officer.”
The decision leaves Ochoa’s constitutional claims alive for trial. The facts identified so far “will likely create a significant barrier” to a qualified immunity defense for Mosunic, the court observed, although the plaintiff still has to identify another case where an officer in similar circumstances was found to have violated the Fourth Amendment.