Bey v. Malec

Background

Raq Bey’s only remaining claim alleged that Jared Malec, Kevin Goodman, Ronald Shepard, Dino Cristiani, and Andrew Yu used excessive force during his arrest on October 31, 2017. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asking the court to rule that no material factual dispute required a trial.

Officer Malec observed Bey make an illegal U-turn and attempted to stop him using emergency lights and a loudspeaker. Bey did not pull over and continued driving at a slow speed. Bey said he was afraid, called 911, and had difficulty seeing because an unidentified vehicle followed him with flashing lights. The officers eventually blocked his vehicle near a freeway on-ramp.

Bey stopped with the engine running. Malec approached with his weapon drawn and repeatedly ordered Bey to raise his hands and exit. Goodman broke the driver-side window with a patrol flashlight. Malec opened the door, removed Bey with help from Cristiani and Shepard, and attempted a leg sweep when Bey did not get to the ground. According to the officers, Bey tensed and did not place his right hand behind his back. Shepard used a control hold, and Malec delivered two knee strikes to Bey’s right bicep before Yu handcuffed him. Bey disputed that he resisted and said officers violently slammed, twisted, and kicked him.

Excessive Force Analysis

The court analyzed the claim under the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizures. It considered the nature of the force, the government’s need for force, the seriousness of the alleged offenses, whether Bey posed an immediate threat, and whether he resisted or attempted to flee.

The court concluded that the force was low on the range of police tactics and was proportional and reasonable. It relied on Bey’s continued driving after the attempted traffic stop, his failure to leave the vehicle after repeated commands, the running engine, and the officers’ perception that he might pose a safety threat. The court acknowledged that Bey was unarmed and never attempted to harm the officers, and that the initial illegal U-turn and other traffic violations were not typically serious offenses. It nevertheless found that the overall circumstances and Bey’s continued failure to follow commands supported the officers’ use of force.

The court separately addressed each challenged action. It held that Goodman acted reasonably in breaking the driver-side window, even though the parties disputed how long the officers waited after ordering Bey to exit. It held that the forcible removal and attempted leg sweep were reasonable, as was Shepard’s control hold while officers tried to handcuff Bey. It held that Malec’s two knee strikes were proportionate because Bey did not place his right arm behind his back. As to Yu, the court found no factual basis for an excessive-force claim because the record showed only that Yu applied the handcuffs.

The court also found that the officers had probable cause to arrest Bey for violating California Penal Code section 148(a)(1), which concerns resisting, delaying, or obstructing an officer. It concluded that Bey had no legal right to disregard the officers’ orders and that the force used was reasonable and proportionate.

Qualified Immunity

The court alternatively held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity generally protects government officials from liability unless their conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time. The court ruled that, even if the force had been excessive, the officers’ conduct did not violate clearly established law that would have put them on notice that it was unlawful.

Disposition

Judge Illston granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Bey’s excessive-force claim.