Preston Seidner v. Jonathan De Vries
Opinion
Opinion
I. BACKGROUND
At summary judgment, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, here Seidner. Ames v. King County, 846 F.3d 340, 347 (9th Cir. 2017). But we do not accept a “version of events that the record, such as an unchallenged video recording of the incident, ‘quite clearly contradicts.’” Rice v. Morehouse, 989 F.3d 1112, 1120 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Scott v. County of San Bernardino, 903 F.3d 943, 952 (9th Cir. 2018)).
A. Traffic Stop and Arrest
In February 2020, de Vries was on patrol just before midnight in Mesa, Arizona when he saw Seidner riding his bicycle on a well-lit residential street without a front light, in violation of Arizona Revised Statute § 28-817(A). De Vries pulled ahead of Seidner to confirm the bicycle-light violation and activated his marked patrol car’s overhead lights. De Vries then stopped the car and opened his door to speak to Seidner. As de Vries exited his car, Seidner continued pedaling past him and began to flee. De Vries got back in his car and pursued Seidner. Seidner cut directly in front of de Vries’s patrol car and continued fleeing. Seidner was traveling approximately 15 miles per hour.