The Estate of Stanley v. City of San Jose
| Docket Number | 22-cv-03000-VKD |
| Decision Date | 22 December 2023 |
| Parties | THE ESTATE OF DEMETRIUS STANLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
This action arises out of a May 31, 2021 deadly encounter between San Jose police officers and Demetrius Stanley, who was at the time the subject of a covert reconnaissance operation. Plaintiff Mimi Lebreton sues for herself and on behalf of the estate of her son, decedent Mr. Stanley, asserting civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as several state law claims for relief. In the original complaint, plaintiffs named as defendants the City of San Jose (“City”) and Officers Anthony Baza and Hans Jorgensen. The complaint asserted five claims for relief four of which were brought on behalf of Mr. Stanley's estate. The complaint asserted claims on Mr. Stanley's behalf against Officer Baza for excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (claim 1); against the City and Officer Baza for violation of the California Bane Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 (claim 3); against the City and Officer Baza for battery (claim 4); and against all defendants for negligence/wrongful death (claim 5). Ms. Lebreton also asserted a Fourteenth Amendment claim against Officer Baza for familial loss, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (claim 2). See Dkt. No. 1.
All parties have expressly consented that all proceedings in this matter may be heard and finally adjudicated by a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Fed.R.Civ.P. 73; Dkt. Nos 14, 16.
The Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the complaint. Dkt. No. 29. The sole claim asserted against Officer Jorgensen was dismissed without leave to amend. The Court otherwise denied defendants' motion to dismiss in all other respects. Id.
The City and Officer Baza, the remaining defendants, now move for summary judgment on all claims for relief. Dkt. No. 38. Plaintiffs stipulate that Officer Baza is entitled to qualified immunity on their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims. Dkt. No. 39 at 8 n.1. They also concede the motion for summary judgment on the Bane Act claim. Id. Accordingly, with respect to plaintiffs' first, second, and third claims for relief, defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted as unopposed.
Plaintiffs oppose the motion for summary judgment only with respect to the claims, brought on behalf of Mr. Stanley's estate, against the City and Officer Baza for battery (claim 4) and for negligence/wrongful death (claim 5). Id. With respect to those remaining claims for relief, upon consideration of the moving and responding papers, as well as the oral arguments presented, the Court denies defendants' motion for summary judgment.[1]
The following background facts are undisputed.
On the evening of May 31, 2021, Officers Baza and Jorgensen were in a San Jose residential neighborhood on Tofts Drive, conducting covert reconnaissance of Mr. Stanley's residence in order to gather information in advance of a planned arrest of Mr. Stanley the next day. Mr. Stanley had an outstanding arrest warrant for a March 2021 armed robbery of a teenager in his neighborhood. See Dkt. No. 38-1, Ex. B; Dkt. No. 38-3 ¶¶ 3-6.
Officers Baza and Jorgensen are members of the San Jose Police Department's Covert Response Unit (“CRU”). At the time of the incident, Officer Baza had been working with CRU for a few weeks, although both he and Officer Jorgensen had worked as police officers in various assignments for about fifteen years. See Dkt. No. 38-4 ¶¶ 2-6; Dkt. No. 38-5 ¶ 2; Dkt. No. 39-9, Ex. 3 (Dkt. No. 39-3, Baza Dep. at 19:5-7)). CRU is a police plain-clothes assignment that specializes in the surveillance/reconnaissance[2] and apprehension of high-threat level violent subjects. See Dkt. No. 38-2 ¶ 3; Dkt. No. 38-3 ¶ 2; Dkt. No. 38-4 ¶ 3; Dkt. No. 38-5 ¶ 3; Dkt. No. 39-3 (Baza Dep. at 16:9-21). To increase the chances that an arrest will be successful, and carried out as safely as possible, CRU's standard operating procedure is to conduct surveillance/reconnaissance of a subject the day before a planned arrest. See Dkt. No. 38-2 ¶ 4; Dkt. No. 38-3 ¶ 9. Indeed, Officer Baza avers that, “the majority of the time in CRU is spent on surveillance and we do not attempt an arrest until we believe we can do it safely.” Dkt. No. 38-5 ¶ 3. With respect to Mr. Stanley, CRU's plan for May 31, 2021 was to conduct only covert reconnaissance; there was no plan to contact or apprehend him that day. See Dkt. No. 38-2 ¶ 6; Dkt. No. 38-3 ¶ 9; Dkt. No. 38-4 ¶ 7; Dkt. No. 38-5 ¶¶ 5-6; Dkt. No. 39-1 (Lopez Dep. at 7:1719).
Officer Alvaro Lopez prepared CRU's operational plan for the reconnaissance of Mr. Stanley's residence and his subsequent apprehension. Dkt. No. 38-3 ¶ 8; see also Dkt. No. 38-1, Ex. C. A records check revealed that Mr. Stanley had a violent criminal history, including prior arrests for battery, domestic violence, assault with a firearm, first degree robbery, criminal threats, illegal possession of a firearm, robbery, and assault with a deadly weapon. Dkt. No. 38-3 ¶ 7. Officer Lopez included Mr. Stanley's criminal history in the CRU operational plan. Dkt. No. 381, Ex. C. He also noted that Mr. Stanley was prohibited from having the firearm seized in connection with the March 2021 armed robbery, and further stated that “[b]ased on [Mr. Stanley's] prior offenses[,] it is likely that he may be in possession of additional firearms.” Id. at ECF 20; see also id., Ex. A at ECF 5; Dkt. No. 38-3 ¶ 6. The operational plan included recent photographs of Mr. Stanley, his address, vehicles and license plates associated with him, and a summary of the March 2021 armed robbery incident that was the subject of the outstanding arrest warrant. Dkt. No. 38-1, Ex. C; Dkt. No. 38-3 ¶ 8.
After completing the operational plan, Officer Lopez submitted it to Sergeant Mark Johnston, who approved the plan. Dkt. No. 38-2 ¶ 4; Dkt. No. 38-3 ¶ 8. Officer Lopez and Sergeant Johnston discussed that the plan would involve reconnaissance of Mr. Stanley's residence, followed by his arrest the next day. Dkt. No. 38-2 ¶¶ 4, 6; Dkt. No. 38-2 ¶ 9. The purpose of the reconnaissance was to gather information, observe the area surrounding Mr. Stanley's residence, confirm vehicles and license plates, and identify Mr. Stanley and anyone else at the residence. Dkt. No. 38-2 ¶ 4; Dkt. No. 38-3 ¶ 9. Sergeant Johnston planned to attend a briefing session to be held at a separate location near the residence and to remain near the residence during the reconnaissance. Dkt. No. 38-2 ¶ 5.
After discussing the operational plan with Sergeant Johnston, Officer Lopez sent a notification to the CRU team at around 4:00 p.m. on May 31, 2021, asking who was available to assist with the reconnaissance of Mr. Stanley's residence that evening. Dkt. No. 38-2 ¶ 5; Dkt. No. 38-3 ¶¶ 10, 11. Several officers responded that they were available, including Officers Baza and Jorgensen. Dkt. No. 38-3 ¶ 10; Dkt. No. 38-4 ¶ 6; Dkt. No. 38-5 ¶ 4.
Officer Baza, who was not scheduled to work that day, drove to the briefing location near Mr. Stanley's residence in his unmarked police vehicle, a Chevrolet Traverse SUV. That vehicle has tinted windows, except for the front windshield, which is clear glass. Dkt. No. 39-2 (Jorgensen Dep. at 70:18-23); see also Dkt. No. 41-3, Ex. 6. Before Officer Baza arrived, Officer Lopez briefed him over the phone. Dkt. No. 38-3 ¶ 12; Dkt. No. 38-5 ¶¶ 4-5. During that phone call, Officer Lopez read to Officer Baza the entire operational plan, including the case summary, Mr. Stanley's physical description, his criminal history, the active arrest warrant, and the assessment that Mr. Stanley likely had other firearms. Dkt. No. 38-3 ¶ 12; Dkt. No. 38-5 ¶ 5.
Officer Baza was the first to arrive near the briefing location and met with Officer Lopez, who gave him a photo of Mr. Stanley and directed him to conduct “fixed” reconnaissance at the front of Mr. Stanley's residence on Tofts Drive. Dkt. No. 38-3 ¶ 12; Dkt. No. 38-5 ¶ 6. In conducting “fixed” reconnaissance, Officer Baza would remain in front of the residence in his vehicle. He understood that his role was to relay to other officers the information gathered at the scene, warn of any threats he could see, and be the “rescue,” i.e., assist or protect other officers on the scene in an emergency, including providing lethal cover, if necessary. Dkt. No. 38-5 ¶ 7; Dkt. No. 39-3 (Baza Dep. at 18:18-23); see also Dkt. No. 39-8 (Flores Dep. at 15:10-17).
Officer Jorgensen was the next to arrive. He also drove an unmarked police vehicle, a black Dodge Caravan. Officer Jorgensen also received a briefing from Officer Lopez by phone. Dkt. No 38-3 ¶ 14; Dkt. No. 38-4 ¶¶ 8, 11. During that briefing, Officer Lopez provided Officer Jorgensen with Mr. Stanley's photo and read to him the entire operational plan, including the case summary, Mr. Stanley's physical description, his criminal history, the active arrest warrant, and noted that Mr. Stanley likely had other firearms. Dkt. No. 38-3 ¶ 14; Dkt. No. 38-4 ¶¶ 6-9. As part of the reconnaissance plan for that evening, Officer Jorgensen states that Officer Lopez instructed him to obtain license plate numbers associated with Mr. Stanley's residence, to ascertain if any vehicle associated with Mr. Stanley was present at the residence, and to “‘get a lay of the land' in the event it was appropriate for CRU officers to perform a surround and call out at the residence...
To continue reading
Request your trial