Facts

On Nov. 3, 2018, at 11 a.m., Danville Police Officers responded to a call about an unfamiliar person who rang the doorbell of a home in the upscale town of Danville. Police received no reports of criminal activity related to the unknown man--just that he was suspicious. When officers arrived, they saw Laudemer Arboleda inside of his car, not committing any crime or infraction. Arboleda lawfully drove away from the area. For unknown reasons, officers pursued Arboleda as he drove away, even though he was not suspected of committing any crime or infraction.

After declining multiple attempts at consensual contact by Danville Police Officers, Arboleda reportedly ran a stop sign which then gave the pursuing officers legal justification to stop Arboleda. Arboleda did not yield to the pursuing officers and instead fled. A slow-speed pursuit took place which defendant Officer Andrew Hall joined. Defendant Hall tried to block Arboleda's path by placing his patrol SUV in front of Arboleda's car while another arriving Officer did the same. However, the officers left a gap between their cars just large enough for Arboleda to drive through without striking the cars or any pedestrians. As Arboleda slowly drove his car through the gap, defendant Hall got out of his patrol car, quickly ran towards the gap and opened fire as Arboleda's car was passing him. Officer Hall shot 10 rounds into the slow-moving car. Defendant Hall claimed he believed Arboleda was going to run him over. Arboleda was struck with multiple bullets, causing his car to careen out of control and strike multiple other cars. Arboleda died from his injuries. The suit was brought by his mother for the loss of her son.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that defendant Hall violated plaintiff Arboleda's Fourteenth Amendment rights because defendant Hall's conduct of shooting into plaintiff Arboleda's slow moving vehicle was done with deliberate indifference or a purpose to harm plaintiff Arboleda, and was unrelated to legitimate law enforcement objectives. Plaintiffs further contended that defendant Hall violated plaintiff Arboleda's rights under the Fourth Amendment by apprehending plaintiff Arboleda by deadly force. Plaintiffs also alleged that plaintiff Arboleda was driving his vehicle slowly and not in the direction of the defendant officers. Plaintiffs contended that the defendants' conduct constituted state constitutional and statutory violations, including, but not limited to, wrongful death, assault, battery, negligence, negligent hiring, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Such conduct caused plaintiff Arboleda to suffer fatal injuries, and/or death. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant officers, as well as the chief of police, sheriff, and others of comparable title, were responsible for plaintiffs' injuries, and also responsible for any acts and/or omissions committed within the scope of employment under the theory of respondeat superior. Plaintiffs contended that defendant county did not have a policy prohibiting officers from shooting into a moving vehicle, which is contrary to recommended police practices because of the inherent risk to public safety once the vehicle's driver becomes incapacitated and unable to control the car.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendant Hall contended that his use of force was justified and related to the legitimate law enforcement objective of protecting himself and others. Specifically, defendant Hall contended that he feared for his safety when Laudemer Arboleda's Civic accelerated with its front wheels pointed in his direction while Hall was trapped in a narrow gap between two patrol vehicles. Hall also claimed that Arboleda's dangerous driving was the proximate cause of the shooting.

Result

The case settled for $4,900,000.