Deborah Hooper v. County of San Diego, County of San Diego Sheriff's Department, William B. Kolender, Kirk Terrell, and Does 1 through 10
Published: Oct. 26, 2013 | Result Date: Oct. 4, 2013 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 3:07-cv-01647-JAH-KSC Verdict – Defense
Court
USDC Southern District of California
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Robert F. Mann
(Donald W. Cook, Attorney at Law)
Donald W. Cook
(Donald W. Cook, Attorney at Law)
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Robert L. Watts
(technical)
David Stothers
(technical)
Defendant
Elmer J. Pellegrino
(technical)
Burton Quick
(technical)
Richard F. Clark Jr.
(medical)
Facts
On May 9, 2006, a privately employed loss prevention officer at a Long's Drugs store in Encinitas, detained plaintiff Deborah Hooper. San Diego County Deputy Sheriff Kirk Terrell responded to a reported shoplifting. The loss prevention officer handcuffed plaintiff and held her in a second-floor office in the store. Plaintiff was calm and compliant, so Terrell removed the handcuffs.
After Terrell took statements from plaintiff, Terrell informed plaintiff that he was going to search plaintiff's car. During his investigation, Terrell discovered methamphetamine inside plaintiff's car. When Deputy Terrell told plaintiff that she was under arrest for possession of methamphetamine, plaintiff physically resisted his attempts to handcuff her. A brawl ensued, during which both parties fell to the ground and Terrell felt plaintiff attempting to remove his gun from its holster. Terrell thought that plaintiff intended to shoot him so that she could then escape. Terrell warned plaintiff to let go of his gun or he would release his canine partner, Quba. When plaintiff refused to let go of the gun, Terrell deployed Quba. Quba bit plaintiff on the head, and plaintiff immediately let go of Terrell's gun. Terrell was then able to subdue and handcuff plaintiff.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that the use of the police dog amounted to excessive force in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights pursuant to 42 USC section 1983. She also claimed a violation of California Civil Code section 52.1.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant contended the use of the dog was reasonable under the circumstances and did not amount to excessive force.
Damages
Plaintiff sought damages for emotional distress.
Injuries
Plaintiff suffered a severe avulsion to her scalp and neck, as well as several broken toes. The scalp avulsion resulted in permanent hair loss.
Result
Defense verdict.
Other Information
Aug. 20, 2007.
Deliberation
2.75 hours
Length
nine days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390