Facts

Frances Gallardo drove a gray Cadillac that was similar to one San Luis Obispo County Sheriff Gregory Roach noticed when responding to a trespass call. Later, while on patrol with a partner, Sheriff Roach noticed Gallardo in his Cadillac on Highway 101. After confirming it was the same car he saw earlier by running the plates, Sheriff Roach proceeded to perform a traffic stop on Gallardo. The exchange led to officers firing shots into Gallardo's vehicle after instructing him to get on the ground. Gallardo was pronounced dead at the scene. Gallardo's wife sued the officers and the County for her husband's death.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendants used unreasonable force after performing an illegal traffic stop that led to his father's death. Plaintiff contended that defendant conspired to harm his father and was not entitled to qualified immunity. Gallardo stated several times that defendant should shoot him because he knew defendants wanted to. Moreover, Gallardo was unarmed and complied with defendants' commands. Therefore, their use of force was not justified. As a result, plaintiff contended that defendant was liable to him for his father's death.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants contended that they were entitled to summary judgment for several reasons. First, no Fourth Amendment violation occurred as alleged because the traffic stop was objectively reasonable based on an arrest warrant for decedent. Next, the force they used to subdue Gallardo was reasonable and in any case would be excused under qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established. Furthermore, defendants did not intend to harm Gallardo and immediately called for medical assistance when they noticed an issue with him. Lastly, defendants neither conspired to nor ratified a conspiracy to injure or kill Gallardo as plaintiffs contended. As a result, defendants contended that they were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

Result

The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Other Information

The matter is on appeal before the Ninth Circuit.