No immunity for Bay Area cops who killed man during attempted stop

OAKLAND, Calif. (CN) — A federal judge ruled Monday that three Hayward Police officers are not immune to the lion’s share of claims in a wrongful death lawsuit arising from the 2021 officer-involved shooting.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers denied most elements of the officers’ motion for summary judgment, finding there are too many disputed facts between parties that a jury should decide.

“Here, the court finds a dispute of fact as to whether the officers acted with reckless disregard,” the Barack Obama appointee wrote in her 15-page order.

The family of Caleb Smith Jr. filed the wrongful death suit over the killing of the 22-year-old as he attempted to evade police in a Motel 6 parking lot in Hayward, California. The plaintiffs, which include Smith’s father and the mother of his child, claim the three officers acted unlawfully in their attempts to detain him.

On March 16, 2021, Hayward police officers Michael Miller, Christopher Suozzo, and Dynaton Tran sought a plateless blue Volvo linked to a string of armed purse robberies near local ATMs and an armed home invasion. After receiving reports that a blue Volvo matching that description was parked at a local Motel 6, the officers responded.

Around 11:30 a.m., they saw Smith approaching the vehicle. They then surrounded Smith and blocked his car in theparking space.Smith tried to escape by ramming the police vehicles. After the first attempt, Suozzo and Miller exited their vehicles and raised their guns.

“Let me see your fucking hands, now!” Tran yelled, as seen in bodycam footage released two months after the event. The Volvo backed up deeper into its space preparing for another ram. The officers pulled forward, blocking him further.

When the Volvo accelerated again, nearly breaking through their blockade, the officers shot seven times, mortally wounding Smith.

Following the shooting, investigators found a Glock-17 9mm firearm on the passenger floor and an empty 30-round Glock magazine in the trunk.

Seven months after the shooting, Smith’s family sued the officers and the city of Hayward, claiming violations of Smith’s Fourth Amendment right and the family’s 14th Amendment right to be free from wrongful government interference with familial relationships, as well as violations of the Bane Act’s prohibition on excessive force and claims of negligence and wrongful death.

“The involved Hayward Police officers deliberately ignored their training, creating a dangerous situation for themselves and the public, resulting in their unlawful use of deadly force and the tragic yet preventable loss of the young father’s life,” Smith’s family say in their lawsuit.

The city and officers moved for summary judgment in September. On Monday, Rogers denied the officers’ motion for summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claim, finding the dispute over whether Smith constituted an immediate threat precluded granting them qualified immunity.

The officers had argued the possibility of Smith’s car running them over should be viewed as a threat to their safety. But Rogers said that’s up to a jury to determine.

“Given these distinguishing characteristics, a reasonable jury could find that, from the perspective of the officers at the scene, the suspect did not pose an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others even if he was attempting escape via vehicle. Case law does not proscribe otherwise.”

Rogers also denied the motion to dismiss claims related to the Bane Act and officer negligence. But she granted the officers’ motion for summary judgment as to the 14th Amendment claim, finding claims that the officer shot an extra time at the defendant in retribution for trying to run away unpersuasive.

“Regarding plaintiffs’ claim that Miller’s final shot was somehow different from the others, or retributive, the court disagrees,” Rogers wrote.

She also indicated a decision on whether the officers will face criminal charges is on the way.

“As mentioned during oral argument, in the interests of justice the court believes that clarity regarding the criminal proceedings should be forthcoming," stated Rogers.

An attorney for the city declined to comment on the ruling, citing ongoing litigation.

Attorneys for Smith’s family did not respond to a request for comment by press time.