Gabriel v. County of Sonoma

Background

On June 2, 2021, Deputy Shawn Forghani of the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office responded to a report of an armed carjacking. The reported suspect was described as an adult Hispanic male with a shaved head, wearing a black baseball cap, white hoodie, and jean shorts, and driving a green Subaru. Forghani stopped Adam Christian Gabriel, who was a white male with a beard, wearing a blue cap and green shirt, and driving a silver Subaru Outback.

Gabriel turned off the car, threw out his keys, raised his hands, exited when ordered, walked toward Forghani, and knelt. When Forghani ordered him to lie on his stomach and crawl, Gabriel did not immediately comply and repeatedly asked what crime he had committed. Forghani warned that the police dog, Max, would bite him and then deployed the dog. The dog bit Gabriel’s right arm for approximately five seconds. Gabriel suffered puncture wounds, a substantial gash, infection, bruising, and claimed lasting nerve damage, numbness, tremors, disfigurement, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The defendants did not dispute those statements.

The undisputed evidence showed that Forghani did not believe Gabriel matched the suspect description, knew Gabriel’s vehicle differed from the reported vehicle, and saw no indication that Gabriel had a weapon. Gabriel was not charged in connection with the carjacking, and an obstruction charge was dropped.

Gabriel asserted a federal excessive-force claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth Amendment against Forghani and Sonoma County. He also asserted state-law claims for negligence per se and violation of the Bane Act. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and Forghani asserted qualified immunity, a legal protection for government officials unless their conduct violated a clearly established right.

Excessive Force

The court evaluated the police-dog deployment under the Fourth Amendment’s rule against unreasonable seizures. It considered the seriousness of the intrusion, the government’s interest in using force, the seriousness of the suspected crime, any immediate threat, and whether Gabriel actively resisted or tried to flee.

The court found the injury evidence undisputed and significant, even though the video showed that the bite was not excessively long and did not involve the dog dragging Gabriel. The government’s interest was weakened because Forghani knew Gabriel did not match the reported suspect, Gabriel’s vehicle differed from the reported vehicle, and there was no actual evidence connecting Gabriel to criminal activity.

The court also found that Gabriel was surrounded by officers with guns drawn, was separated from his car, had no apparent weapon, and showed no movement toward a weapon. He complied with every command before the dog was released except that he hesitated to lie down and crawl. The court characterized this conduct, at worst, as passive resistance. Under the cited Ninth Circuit precedent, using non-trivial force against a person who merely passively resists can be unreasonable.

The court nevertheless denied Gabriel’s motion because defendants presented evidence that he briefly raised his body, yelled in an angry or forceful manner, and scanned the officers’ positions. Forghani testified that he interpreted Gabriel’s conduct as potentially preceding an attack or escape. The court said a jury could credit that testimony, even though it did not readily match the court’s view of the video. Because genuine disputes of material fact remained, the court denied summary judgment for both sides on the excessive-force claim.

Qualified Immunity

The court denied Forghani qualified immunity. It concluded that, by June 2, 2021, Ninth Circuit law clearly established that officers could not use non-trivial force against someone who merely engaged in passive resistance. The court also concluded that existing decisions clearly established that releasing a police dog to bite a person who was not fleeing, was not physically resisting, did not have a weapon, and was surrounded by officers could violate the Fourth Amendment.

The court rejected defendants’ attempt to characterize Gabriel’s conduct as active resistance, reasoning that this was a dispute about the facts rather than evidence that the law was unclear. It distinguished cases involving suspects who were known to be dangerous, fleeing, hiding, physically resisting, or presenting a clear threat.

Sonoma County

For the § 1983 claim against Sonoma County, Gabriel had to show that a County policy, practice, or custom caused the constitutional violation. The court found that Gabriel had not presented evidence of a sufficiently persistent and widespread practice of similar dog deployments, and had not identified an express County policy that clearly authorized the conduct shown in the record.

The court nevertheless allowed the County claim to proceed at the summary-judgment stage under Gabriel’s ratification theory. The record showed that the dog deployment was administratively reviewed, found to be within the County’s use-of-force policy, and approved by Sheriff Mark Essick. Because defendants did not dispute that the Sheriff was a final policymaker for use of force, a reasonable jury could find that the after-the-fact approval was evidence of a policy that caused Gabriel’s constitutional injury. Summary judgment for the County was therefore denied.

State-Law Claims and Disposition

The court denied defendants’ request for summary judgment on the negligence-per-se claim. It explained that negligence per se is an evidentiary presumption arising from a violation of a statute, ordinance, or regulation, rather than an independent cause of action. Defendants had not adequately shown that the record lacked evidence supporting Gabriel’s claims based on the cited California Penal Code provisions.

The court declined to decide an immunity argument that defendants raised for the first time in their reply brief and found their other immunity arguments insufficiently developed. The court also refused to dismiss the Bane Act claim based on a footnote stating that Gabriel might not pursue it; the court said Gabriel could file a notice if he was abandoning that claim.

In its conclusion, the court stated: “Summary judgment is denied. Qualified immunity is denied.” The parties were directed to jointly propose a date for a jury trial in the first quarter of 2025.