# Gonzalez Ex Rel. Gonzalez v. City of Anaheim

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · March 31, 2014 · 747 F.3d 789

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9799194

## Case

- **Full name:** Rafael GONZALEZ, Individually and as Successor in Interest to Adolph Anthony Sanchez Gonzalez, Plaintiff, and F.E v.  a Minor, Individually and as Successor in Interest to Adolph Anthony Sanchez Gonzalez, by and Through Her Guardian Ad Litem David Vasquez; Antoinette Sanchez, Individually and as Successor in Interest to Adolph Anthony Sanchez Gonzalez, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF ANAHEIM, Daron Wyatt, and Matthew Ellis, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 31, 2014
- **Citations:** 747 F.3d 789; 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5895; 2014 WL 1274551
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Kozinski
- **Judges:** Alex, Barry, Bea, Clifton, Graber, Kozinski, Margaret, Silverman, Stephen, Susan, Tallman, Trott
- **Nature of suit:** Civil
- **Cited by:** 340 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9799194

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a reasonable jury 4 could find that shooting the driver in the head was unreasonable if the jury concluded the vehicle 5 was not moving at a high rate of speed and thus did not pose a threat of death or serious bodily 6 injury to the officers or others
- concluding that an officer should provide a warning whenever practicable before using deadly force and that a jury could find that shooting a suspect in the head with a firearm without warning was unreasonable
- reversing 13 grant of summary judgment for defendant because, unlike in 14 Wilkinson, the officer -- who was inside the vehicle while 15 decedent was driving under ten miles per hour -- “was not on foot 16 next to a vehicle that might run him over at any moment should it 17 ha…
- recognizing that the inherent safety considerations surrounding traffic stops “have even greater salience” when an officer suspects an individual is intoxicated
- noting that “speculation as to . . . improper motive does not rise to the level of evidence sufficient to survive summary judgment” (quoting Karem v. City of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188 , 1194 (9th Cir. 2003))

## Opinion text

Chief Judge KOZINSKI,
with whom Circuit Judges TROTT, TALLMAN and BEA join,
dissenting:
It’s undisputed that, at the time he fired the fatal shot, Officer Wyatt was trapped inside a moving vehicle driven by a man who had resisted the verbal commands, physical restraints, lethal threats and bodily force of two uniformed officers. How fast the van was moving and how far it had traveled are beside the point. Wfliat matters is that Officer Wyatt was prisoner in a vehicle controlled by someone who had already committed several dangerous felonies. No sane officer in Wyatt’s situation would have acted any differently, and no reasonable jury will hold him liable. The only thing this remand will accomplish is to give plaintiffs a bludgeon with which to extort a hefty settlement. The Supreme Court should foil the plan with a swift summary reversal.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9799194. Public record. Not legal advice.