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
Excessive Force
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments

Chris Hill as personal representative of the Estate of Charles Hill v. Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Kenton W. Rainey, Myron Lee and James Crowell

Published: Oct. 12, 2013 | Result Date: Sep. 18, 2013 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 4:12-cv-00372-DMR Summary Judgment –  Defense

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Adante Pointer
(Pointer & Buelna LLP)

John L. Burris
(Law Offices of John L. Burris)


Defendant

Kevin P. Allen
(Allen, Glaessner, Hazelwood & Werth LLP)

Dirk D. Larsen
(Frassetto Law LLP)


Facts

On July 3, 2011, defendant James Crowell, a Bay Area Rapid Transit District police officer and his partner, Myron Lee, responded to a call about an intoxicated person at the Civic Center station. The officers proceeded to Civic Station, where they observed Charles Hill. When the officers approached Hill, he threw a glass bottle in their direction. Crowell continued to pursue Hill, who at some point produced a sharp object in his hand. Crowell drew his gun and instructed Hill to drop the object, but Hill did not.

The officer claimed Hill made a movement indicating that he might throw the knife. Crowell opened fire and killed him.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Hill's estate filed suit against Crowell, asserting causes of action for excessive force, wrongful death, civil rights violations, and negligence. The plaintiffs argued that Hill never posed a serious risk to Crowell's safety, and so the shooting was not necessary.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants contended that Hill threw a bottle at the officers, then later pulled out a knife. Because Crowell believed Hill would throw the knife, which Hill in fact later did, defendants claimed Hill posed a threat to the officer's safety, and the shooting was justified.

Defendants argued that a surveillance video confirmed what had happened, but only showed Crowell's actions. The video did however show a flying object, which the parties identified as Hill's knife. Crowell's partner did not observe the altercation, as he'd slipped and fallen on the contents of the bottle Hill had thrown.

The Bay Area Rapid Transit District moved for summary judgment, arguing that Crowell's use of force was reasonable.

Result

The court granted summary judgment for the defense.


#118370

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

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