Don’t be surprised, but in most Californian cities people injured by cops engaged in vehicle pursuits are not allowed to sue the police that caused their injuries, on one condition. If the city has adopted detailed standards and restrictions for officers to follow when conducting a pursuit, even a reckless pursuit on hills and across blind intersections, lawsuits for injuries and deaths are outlawed.
For cities that have complied with the detailed requirements of the Vehicle Code, their police departments are immune from lawsuits for injuries and deaths as a result of crashes that are inevitable when cops chase cars on city streets.
That’s a sad result for a family who has lost a family member in a crash caused by the police, or a person hospitalized with a permanent life-time injury.
But that has all changed for people injured by SFPD cops, and families that have had a family member killed by a police chase. As a result of Prop E on the March 5, 2024, ballot, they are now free to file suit against the City and County of San Francisco.
The police pursuit section of Prop E allows lawsuits because it does not meet the stringent requirements of California law for a city to be immune from lawsuits arising from police pursuits. Accordingly, San Francisco can be held liable for the crashes that occur all too often in police pursuits on city streets.
I write from experience in multiple cases over several years.
Currently Alexander Law Group, LLP represents Al Nievas in a wrongful death lawsuit against Santa Clara County arising from a high-speed vehicle pursuit by a deputy sheriff that killed two of his adult children, ages 22 and 25, on April 26, 2021.
The Caucasian deputy claimed a Chicano driver did not use a turn signal at an intersection. The cop was out for tickets that night and the claimed violation never occurred. Onboard video confirms the Chicano driver used his turn signals and drove at a safe speed. It was a pretext traffic stop, all too often suffered by non-white drivers, often resulting in disasters, like this one.
The deputy took off after the car with lights flashing, but never activated his siren, as required by law when he announced on his radio that he was “in pursuit.” The County claims the Chicano driver is totally at fault for the deaths. Chasing down an innocent Chicano driver for bogus offenses that triggered these deaths and chasing without a siren gave no warning to Al Nievas’ son and daughter that a dangerous chase was underway. A jury will decide the outcome of this tragic loss of two lives, killed as a result of a traffic infraction and an illegal traffic stop by a corrupt cop.
Most cities have adopted detailed standards and restrictions for officers to follow when conducting a pursuit and under California law, if they have complied with the detailed requirements of the Vehicle Code, the police department is immune from lawsuits for injuries and deaths as a result of crashes arising from a pursuit.
Mr. Nievas was free to sue Santa Clara County for the wrongful death of his children because the County Sheriff never adopted a police pursuit standard that met the requirements of the California Vehicle Code §17004.7 and operated on an out-of-date pursuit policy written in 2010.
Almost two years after the deaths of the Nievas children, on March 20, 2023, Santa Clara County adopted a new policy written by Lexipol, a private consulting firm that is the leading commercial provider of law enforcement policies in the United States. Lexipro writes state-of-the-art standards for police departments across the United States. Lexipro’s Police Pursuit Policy 307 is now the official standard adopted by the Santa Clara County Sheriff. It is identical to the one adopted by the Cleveland Heights Police Department that you can read here.
Proposition E authorizes vehicle pursuits on city streets when a police officer “has reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a felony or violent misdemeanor crime has occurred, is occurring or is about to occur. . . . the officer must weigh the seriousness of the crime and the likelihood that the pursuit will prevent the crime or lead to the apprehension of a suspect against the potential dangers to the community and officers.”
Offhand that language appears reasonable, but it contradicts the recommendations of the major police policy institutions including the prestigious California Commission on Police Officers Standards & Training and the Police Executive Research Forum, a national think tank on policing standards.
Both advise that a pursuit should only take place under stringent conditions only when an officer is aware a violent crime has been committed or when the suspect poses an imminent threat to commit another violent crime.
In short, police pursuits are so dangerous they are to be avoided except in very exceptional cases.
Prop E fails to meet the mandatory requirements of Vehicle Code §17004.7 that specifies the requirements for a written pursuit policy for a police department in California.
Compare the scant 61 words on conducting pursuits set out in Prop E, quoted above, with a professionally written pursuit policy that fully complies with California law. For example, the 13-page Lexipol Policy 307.
For San Francisco to be immune from lawsuits, all of the following minimum standards set forth in Vehicle Code 17004.7 must be contained in a department’s pursuit policy..
Prop E does not come close to providing necessary safety limitations on police pursuits.
Because of Prop E, people injured or the families of those killed as a result of police pursuits now can sue the City and County of San Francisco. Crashes can readily be guaranteed to occur because that is the common outcome, injuring cops, the people they chase and innocent drivers and pedestrians. And the odds are even higher for vehicle pursuits on the hills and blind intersections of San Francisco.
Under California law, when a police car is involved in a pursuit, that vehicle must be operated with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway and generally cops driving in pursuits engage in very dangerous and reckless conduct. Claiming a cop was driving with due regard for safety, after the crash, is a difficult defense and if the pursuit was for a claimed minor traffic infraction or a garden variety misdemeanor, the damage and harm caused will far exceed any public safety benefit.
In short, Prop E will benefit people unfortunately injured or killed by police chases and give them a clear avenue for being compensated for their losses by the City & County of San Francisco.
Alexander Law Group, LLP is an established and highly respected personal injury and wrongful death law firm with decades of experience collecting maximum recoveries for losses caused by a wide range of illegal misconduct and have sued cities, counties, the State of California and major defendants in 24 states, including successful national class actions. We are personal injury safety lawyers committed to make a difference for our clients. We don’t handle cases, we care for people who have suffered a disaster and who need the highest quality lawyers with a proven track record of results.
Call 888.777.1776. No recovery: no fees, no costs. We put it in writing.
Onward,
Richard Alexander
