This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Civil Rights
False Arrest
42 USC Section 1983

Barbara Silva, Matthew Hoy, Bruce Hemphill v. City of San Leandro, a municipal corporation; Chief of Police Ian Willis, in his official capacity; Robert McManus; Brian Buss; Daniel Sellers; Michael Benz; Matthew Costa; Liaquat Khan; Dennis Mally; Jason Fletcher; Suzanne Huckaby

Published: Mar. 19, 2011 | Result Date: Jan. 21, 2011 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 3:09-cv-03649-JCS Verdict –  Defense

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Steven R. Yourke


Defendant

Tricia L. Hynes

Matthew A. Lavrinets


Experts

Defendant

Donald S. Cameron
(technical)

Facts

Two San Leandro Police Dept. officers responded to a 911 call on May 24, 2009, reporting a woman who was turning blue from a drug overdose at a private residence. The two officers called for back up after they were refused entry and about 10 officers arrived at the scene, after which they gained entry to the house from a side door. When entering the house, the officers encountered two men, and at some point, a pit bull mix charged at officer Daniel Sellers, causing him to shoot the canine. The dog died from the injury.

Barbara Silva, the dog's owner, filed suit against Sellers, alleging illegal seizure and destruction of her property.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTION: Silva contended there was no emergency situation justifying Sellers entry into the private residence and that the 911 call was a prank. Silva also alleged that even if the officers were justified in entering the house, the manner in which they did was unreasonable by entering without warning, and that they should have requested the dog be secured before entering the house.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Sellers contended that the officers were responding to a 911 call and believed someone's life was in danger when entering the house, making the entry both reasonable and appropriate. Sellers further contended that the people inside the house failed to cooperate with the officers or let them in, and that they did not hear barking before entering the house.

Result

The jury rendered a verdict for the defense.

Deliberation

two hours

Poll

8-0

Length

three days


#108022

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390