Leonor v. California Highway Patrol Officers T. Kozisek

Background

The defendants moved for summary judgment, a procedure for deciding claims without a trial when no genuine dispute exists about a fact that could affect the result. The court heard oral argument on August 21, 2026. The court relied primarily on the parties’ undisputed material facts, video and audio from Officer Kozisek’s mobile recording system, and the report of Leonor’s police-practices expert, Ernest Burwell.

On August 23, 2024, the California Highway Patrol received a report of a man allegedly displaying a firearm at another driver. About an hour later, Officers Hernandez, Negrete, and Kozisek found a vehicle matching the report and conducted a high-risk traffic stop. Officers ordered Leonor to get out, raise his hands, and follow other commands. Leonor sometimes complied, including by walking toward the officers, putting his dog back in the car, closing the car doors, and raising his hands. He also moved around the vehicle, lowered his hands, and reached into the car to remove a small dog.

About one or two seconds after Leonor emerged holding the dog and turned toward the police cruiser, Officer Hernandez fired his weapon. The bullet missed Leonor and entered a nearby residence. About four minutes after the stop began, Leonor stood with his arms extended, lowered them, turned around, walked four steps away, and stopped. Officer Kozisek then deployed a police dog. The dog bit Leonor’s leg for about 20 to 28 seconds while officers surrounded and subdued him. The parties disputed whether Leonor was fleeing and how long he remained subject to the bite after he was subdued. It was undisputed that Officer Negrete did not discharge the firearm or deploy the police dog.

Legal standard and qualified immunity

The claims arose under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows claims against government officials for violating federal rights. The defendants relied on qualified immunity, a protection that generally prevents personal liability unless an officer violated a federal right and the unlawfulness of the conduct was clearly established at the time. The defendants directed their arguments only to whether another reasonable officer could have supported the officers’ conduct.

Officer Negrete

The defendants argued that Negrete only issued commands, helped subdue Leonor, and provided aid. Leonor did not dispute that description and represented at the hearing that he did not oppose dismissal of the claims against Negrete on qualified-immunity grounds. The court granted the defendants’ motion as to Negrete and entered judgment in her favor.

Officer Hernandez

The court denied summary judgment as to Hernandez’s use of deadly force. The court explained that clearly established law prohibits deadly force against an unarmed and non-dangerous person and requires a warning before deadly force when feasible. The court recognized that the earlier firearm report and Leonor’s reaching into an initially unsearched car could have caused a reasonable officer to fear that he was retrieving a gun.

But Hernandez did not fire while Leonor was reaching into the car. He fired after Leonor emerged holding a small dog and turned toward the police cruiser. The record did not resolve whether Hernandez knew Leonor had emerged with a dog rather than a gun, or whether Hernandez could reasonably still have believed Leonor had a firearm. The court also could not determine Hernandez’s vantage point, including whether he was standing or kneeling and whether officers or vehicles obstructed his view. Because those unresolved facts could affect qualified immunity, the defendants did not meet their burden for summary judgment as to Hernandez.

Officer Kozisek

The court also denied summary judgment as to Kozisek’s use of the police dog. Leonor claimed both that deploying the dog was unreasonable and that allowing it to continue biting him after he was subdued was excessive force. The court described a police “bite-and-hold” as severe force even though it is not deadly.

The defendants’ justification for deploying the dog was that Leonor turned away and began leaving. The court found that point disputed. The video showed Leonor walking slowly a few steps backward rather than running, and his movements were similar to his earlier movements around the scene. The court therefore found a factual dispute about whether a reasonable officer could have believed Leonor was fleeing and whether deploying the dog was permitted.

The defendants also did not address Leonor’s separate argument that the dog remained attached for an unreasonable length of time. The court stated that clearly established law recognizes that an excessively long dog bite can violate the Fourth Amendment, including after a person has surrendered. The court therefore concluded that Kozisek was not entitled to qualified immunity on either the deployment or duration of the dog bite at this stage.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Judgment was entered in favor of Officer Negrete. Summary judgment was denied as to Officers Hernandez and Kozisek on Leonor’s claims against them.