Quintanilla

Quintanilla v. City of Downey

Good Law
84 F.3d 353·96 Daily Journal DAR 5821·1996 WL 268360·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 11675·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3597
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 22, 1996No. 94-56550California2,936 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Schroeder, J.

ORDER

Plaintiff Ever Quintanilla appeals from a judgment entered after a jury verdict against him in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against the city of Downey, its police chief, and three individual officers. The suit alleged that the use of a police dog to search and detain Quintanilla during his arrest violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiff challenges the district court’s denial of his motion for a directed verdict on the issue of deadly force, its denial of his motion for a new trial because of allegedly erroneous evi-dentiary rulings and jury instructions, and its entry of judgment for the police chief and the city on the basis of jury findings that the individual police officers did not violate Quin-tanilla’s constitutional rights. 1 We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Shortly after midnight on July 27, 1991, the city of Downey’s police dispatcher radioed a report that a Ford Bronco had been stolen. One officer spotted the Bronco, driven by Quintanilla, and began a high speed chase through various residential areas. The auto chase ended in a dead-end cul-de-sac, where Quintanilla got out, threw an empty vodka bottle at the officer, sealed a barbed-wire fence, and vanished…

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.