Green v. City & Ctny. of San Francisco, No. 11-17892 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against defendants, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law for wrongful detention, false arrest, and excessive force. An SFPD officer, Sergeant Kim, made a "high-risk" stop of plaintiff's vehicle after mistakenly identifying the vehicle as stolen. Plaintiff was held at gunpoint, handcuffed, forced to her knees, and detained for up to twenty minutes. The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants on the grounds that plaintiff could not establish a Fourth Amendment constitutional violation as a matter of law on her wrongful seizure, false arrest, or excessive claims because a rational jury could find for plaintiff on all three claims. The court reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's suit on the grounds that Sergeant Kim was protected by qualified immunity because the court could not make a determination as a matter of law that Sergeant Kim could have reasonably believed at the time that the force actually used was lawful under the circumstances; consequently, the court remanded plaintiff's claims against the City and the SFPD for further resolution; and the court reversed and remanded the state law claims.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel reversed the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants, affirmed the district court’s order denying partial summary for plaintiff, and remanded in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging wrongful detention, false arrest and excessive force. Plaintiff’s lawsuit arose out of a vehicular stop by San Francisco Police officers after the police department’s Automatic License Plate Reader mistakenly identified plaintiff’s Lexus as a stolen vehicle. Without visually confirming the license plate, a police officer made a “high-risk” stop during which plaintiff was held at gunpoint by multiple officers, handcuffed, forced to her knees, and detained for up to twenty minutes before the mistake was discovered and she was released. The panel held that there were triable questions as to whether: (1) law enforcement had a reasonable suspicion to justify plaintiff’s initial detention, (2) plaintiff’s detention amounted to an arrest without probable cause, and (3) police officers used excessive force in effecting the detention. The panel further held that viewing the facts in plaintiff’s favor, it could not make a determination as a matter of law that the officer who made the initial stop was entitled to qualified immunity. Because questions of fact remained regarding defendants’ conduct, the panel also reversed the district court’s summary judgment as to the municipal liability and state law claims and affirmed the district court’s denial of partial summary judgment as to plaintiff.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.