Tennison

Tennison v. Sanders

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 8, 200806-15426California7,083 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

Construing the facts in favor of the nonmoving parties, as we must, Genzler v. Longanbach, 410 F.3d 630, 636 99th Cir. 2005), the record establishes the following facts.

The victim in this case, Roderick Shannon, was beaten, shot, and killed. Inspectors Sanders and Hendrix volunteered to investigate the case. The evidence indicated that Shannon was chased while driving his car by a pick-up truck full of young men, and that he crashed into a fence in a parking lot after driving in reverse in an attempt to evade his pursuers. Shannon was beaten and shot when he tried to escape on foot. Shannon was driving a green Buick Skylark that he and his cousin Patrick Barnett owned.

A few days after the murder, Hendrix received a phone call from then eleven-year-old Masina Fauolo, who told Hendrix that she had witnessed Shannon’s murder.1 Masina initially called anonymously and stated that she was parked in “Lov- ers’ Lane,” when she saw numerous autos chasing another car that she knew belonged to Barnett. She followed in her car and saw the driver lose control and flee on foot. When the driver was captured by his pursuers, he was beaten and shot. The assailants fled in a pickup…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.