Associate
Background: A Tragic Outcome in Oakland
In the case of Estate of Soakai v. Abdelaziz, — F.4th —-, 2025 WL 1417105 (May 16, 2025), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action involving two police officers, Walid Abdelaziz and Jimmy Marin-Coronel, who were sued by the estate of Lolomania Soakai and other plaintiffs.
The case had a rowdy dissent!
The plaintiffs were innocent bystanders injured during a high-speed police chase in Oakland, California. The chase ended tragically when the suspect’s car crashed into a group of people, resulting in Lolomania Soakai’s death and severe injuries to others.
Allegations Against the Officers
The plaintiffs alleged that the officers violated their Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights by:
- Conducting the chase with the intent to harm the suspect.
- Failing to render or summon emergency services after the crash.
These are tough claims. Quite difficult.
The Officers’ Conduct: Ghost Chase in Violation of Policy
The officers followed the suspect’s car through the highly populated streets of Oakland at speeds up to 100 mph. Notably, they:
- Engaged in a “ghost chase”
- Pursued the suspect without their lights and sirens,
- Did not radio in the chase to police dispatch.
The Oakland Police Department prohibits police chases with rare exceptions. Sadly, the suspect lost control of his vehicle and crashed into cars and motorcycles parked by a late-night taco truck. Several bystanders waiting for food at the taco truck were struck; Lolomania Soakai died from his injuries.
The officers witnessed the crash but did not stop or summon medical aid. The officers came on scene—acting as if they had only just arrived—after they heard other officers had already responded. The officers were overheard commenting that they hoped the suspect had died in the crash.
Qualified Immunity Denied
The court agreed with the lower court’s decision not to dismiss the officers’ case based on qualified immunity, which usually protects government officials from lawsuits unless they clearly violated someone’s rights.
The main judges believed the plaintiffs had a strong claim that the officers chased the suspect with the intent to harm, which went beyond what is acceptable for law enforcement.
The court also looked at the idea that the officers created a dangerous situation by not helping after the crash, showing they ignored the plaintiffs’ worsening health conditions.
One judge disagreed with the majority opinion.
How does this case help our practice if and when we want to allege a “shock the conscience” claim:
Body camera footage is crucial in cases involving police chases because it can help meet the “shock the conscience” test. This test is used to decide if a police officer acted in a way that violates a person’s rights by intending to harm them for reasons that aren’t related to legitimate law enforcement actions, like arresting someone or defending themselves or others.
Meeting this test is challenging because police chases often have clear law enforcement goals. However, the test is subjective, meaning it focuses on the officer’s mindset and whether they are believable.
Using Officer Statements and Video to Prove Intent
In this case, the complaint claims that police officers acted in a way that was meant to make the suspect lose control, which could lead to serious injury or even death. This claim is backed by video footage showing officers making comments that suggest they didn’t care about the suspect’s well-being, even hoping the suspect would die.
The case was appealed after a previous attempt to dismiss it was denied. Now, the district court might find it difficult to grant a quick decision without a full trial (known as summary judgment). This is because the officer’s comments raise questions about whether the officer was credible and what their true intentions were when they expressed hope that the suspect would die.
How does this case help our practice if we want to allege a “state-created danger” claim?
Once again, the body and dash cams helped frame this victor at this stage. The general rule is that people are not entitled to government aid under the Fourteenth Amendment (shocking I know). But there is an exception called: state-created danger, which has two requirements:
- Creating Danger Through Actions:
- The plaintiff needs to show that the officer’s actions put them in a dangerous situation they wouldn’t have faced otherwise. This means proving that what the officer did directly put the plaintiff at risk.
- In this case, the plaintiffs claim that the officers chased a suspect without using lights and sirens, which led to the suspect driving recklessly. This chase created a dangerous situation for the plaintiffs, as it resulted in a high-speed pursuit that increased the chance of a crash and injuries.
- Ignoring Known Dangers:
- The plaintiff must prove that the officer ignored a known or obvious danger. This can happen in two ways:
- The officer’s actions that created the danger also show they ignored the risk.
- The officer’s actions created a risk, and then they failed to act or respond properly, showing they ignored the plaintiff’s situation.
- The plaintiffs argue that the officers ignored the danger by not providing or calling for medical help after the crash, even though they knew about the injuries. The officers continued driving without helping and pretended to arrive at the scene later, showing they ignored the plaintiffs’ need for immediate medical care. This behavior fits the standard of ignoring known dangers because the officers allegedly knew their actions would put the plaintiffs at risk and chose to ignore it.
- The plaintiff must prove that the officer ignored a known or obvious danger. This can happen in two ways:
Go forth justice warriors.