|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A years-long legal battle continues as the California Supreme Court has agreed to review an appellate court ruling in favor of a bystander injured in a 2017 car crash in Pleasanton, overturning an earlier decision that found the city and its police department were covered under qualified immunity.
Melanie Gilliland initially filed a lawsuit against the city of Pleasanton in 2018, months after she was injured in a three-vehicle crash after a teenager trying to evade police ran a red light in the northern part of the city.
The case ultimately went to a bench trial in 2024 in Alameda County Superior Court, with a judge ruling in favor of the city and awarding it legal fees to paid by Gilliland, concluding that the Pleasanton Police Department officer who had been following the teenage suspect in 2017 was engaged in a police pursuit that qualified the city and police for immunity against collateral damages.
That ruling was overturned late last year, when the appellate court determined that the incident did not qualify as a police pursuit as defined by city or state regulations.Â
“This case is unusual in that the City seeks statutory immunity based on its vehicular pursuit policy even though it admits that no actual pursuit was initiated-meaning that section 17004.7’s main purpose of freeing peace officers to make decisions about initiating or continuing pursuits without worrying about their employer’s potential liability does not apply here,” appellate judge Jim Humes wrote in the reversal order published in November.
Pleasanton city attorney Dan Sodergren told the Weekly that it is against city policy to comment on pending litigation. Lawyers for Gilliland did not respond to a request for comment as of Friday afternoon.
Humes contended that the trial court had “deprived” Gilliland of the opportunity to argue about the definition of pursuit being used in its decision, specifically ignoring evidence that the driver in the collision, Elijah Henry, did not believe he was being pursued according to relevant law.
With Henry having been shot and killed in East Oakland in 2022, debate during the civil bench trial and other ongoing proceedings rests on what he indicated before his death about his motivation and mental state in previous court records.
Henry was convicted on a DUI charge stemming from the incident in 2018, having had marijuana in his system at the time, with reckless driving and great bodily harm charges dismissed. It was the first of several criminal charges he would go on to face before dying at the age of 23, including robbery and firearms charges.
According to Humes’ analysis, Henry had not believed he was facing any formal criminal investigatory treatment from police at the time, but that he “did not like police” and had been trying to avoid speaking to the PPD officer who had seen him and his friends in a parking lot and gone on to follow them.
“Whether a suspect was actually pursued and whether the suspect had a perception of being pursued both turn on the definition of ‘pursuit’ in the public entity’s vehicular pursuit policy,” Humes wrote.
“Since the trial court disregarded evidence that Henry did not believe he was pursued within the meaning of the City’s pursuit policy, which requires that the suspect be ‘attempting to avoid arrest,’ Gilliland was deprived of the opportunity to establish that Section 17004.7 does not immunize the City because no pursuit of any type occurred,” he continued. “We therefore reverse and remand for the court to apply the correct legal standard.”
According to the appellate court’s findings, Henry did not believe he was being pursued for investigatory purposes by police, despite being followed, because there were no lights or sirens present. He was nonetheless seeking to evade the officer following him – ultimately resulting in running a red light and colliding with Gilliland and another driver – out of fear of racial profiling and an overall mistrust of law enforcement.
The appellate panel concluded that the trial court had given “little to no weight” to this point in Henry’s declaration during the trial.
“We hold that ‘pursued’ has one meaning as used in section 17004.7(b)(1), and the definition of ‘pursuit’ in a public entity’s policy applies not just in determining whether suspects were actually pursued but also in determining whether they believed they were being pursued,” Humes wrote.
The city filed a petition for rehearing of the appellate court’s opinion in December, which was rejected on the grounds that it “ignores the opinion’s holding” that the trial court ruled incorrectly in favor of statutory immunity.
“We further held that the error was prejudicial because it caused the court to discount as irrelevant evidence about Henry’s mind state-which came from his deposition, not his declaration-that was relevant under the proper legal standard,” Humes wrote on Dec. 9. “Ultimately, the City’s consternation about the opinion’s discussion of Henry’s declaration and Officer Harvey’s beliefs falls far short of providing any legitimate basis for rehearing.”
While that opinion upholds the appellate court’s findings and overturns the verdict in Alameda County Superior Court, further debate could be on the horizon. The case is now pending before the California Supreme Court, following a petition for review that was filed by the city and granted by the court on March 18.
The appellate ruling had sent the matter back to county court “to use the appropriate standard to decide whether the City is entitled to immunity” in further proceedings.
“Even if a public entity is not entitled to statutory immunity because an actual or perceived pursuit did not occur, it hardly follows that the entity will be found liable for damages resulting from a collision in which a peace officer might have played a role,” Humes wrote for the court. “Here, the City may ultimately prevail on other grounds, and we hold only that section 17004.7 does not apply merely because Henry believed Officer Harvey was following him for some type of investigative purpose.”
Downtown Livermore restaurant up for sale months after reopening from fire damageMarch 27, 2026 5:26 pm