ALAMEDA, Calif. (CN) — The core of the claims from Mario Gonzalez’s family’s civil rights suit against Alameda Police officers will head to trial this November, U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu said in a hearing on Thursday afternoon.
Gonzalez died on April 19, 2021, after three Alameda police officers detained him at Scout Park because they claimed he was drunk and was a danger to himself. Body camera footage shows two Alameda police officers, Eric McKinley and James Fisher, placing their weight on Gonzalez for more than five minutes while he was handcuffed in a prone position, asphyxiating him.
A resident of Oak Street, adjacent to Scout Park, originally placed a call to police and reported Gonzalez was talking to himself, but admitted “he was not doing anything wrong,” according to the complaint.
Gonzalez’s attorneys claim his civil rights were violated and his detainment was unconstitutional since he had not committed any crime. A Walgreens basket full of liquor bottles was on the ground nearby, but officers confirmed there was no theft from the Walgreens across the street from Scout Park.
The complaint was filed by Gonzalez’s family on behalf of his seven-year-old son. Alameda police officers McKinley, Fisher, and Cameron Leahy are named defendants in the suit, as well as then-interim Police Chief Randy Fenn.
Fourteenth Amendment claims were the biggest focus of the hearing in front of the judge.
“On the Fourteenth Amendment, we’ve got the shocks the conscience standard, which, depending on the situation, might be subject to the deliberative difference standard or the purpose to harm standard,” Ryu said.
Defense attorney Gregory Fox argued that a purpose to harm standard applied in this case, saying that the arrest was a “rapidly evolving” situation where the three officers never had a chance to think.
“I think the key here is that they never really had a period of time in which Mr. Gonzalez was under control, not resisting, not struggling, and continually communicating with them while they tried to make sure they were assessing his medical needs and what force they had to use,” Fox said.
Michael Haddad, an attorney for Gonzalez’s family, replied that determining purpose to harm should be up to a jury and that the deliberate difference standard could be applied to the case because the officers consciously decided to detain and arrest Gonzalez after deliberating if they had probable cause.
Officers Fisher and McKinley “decided together to take Gonzalez down when their attempts to strong-arm him into handcuffs wasn’t working,” Haddad said.
It was also a deliberate decision for the officers to use their weight to restrain Gonzalez after he was handcuffed on the ground, Haddad argued. Once Gonzalez was in handcuffs, he was no longer a threat and the officers had time to deliberate on their actions then, as well, Haddad said.
Haddas also argued that deliberate indifference — the knowing violation of a prisoner's human rights — applied in the case.
Fox discounted deliberate indifference, arguing that the officers did not know Gonzalez was at any risk of imminent harm in the first 15 minutes after the detainment. He reiterated that officers had no time to deliberate because they never fully had Gonzalez under control.
“There’s nothing in there that would show they had any specific intent to harm him,” Fox said. He said that officers detained Gonzalez for his own health, and followed their training throughout the arrest.
Regardless of intent, the officers violated Gonzalez’s civil rights because they had no legitimate reason to detain him, Haddad said.
Gonzalez was detained for resisting arrest, but California law allows a person to resist an unlawful arrest, Haddad explained. Since there was no legitimate reason for Gonzalez to be detained once officers confirmed there was no theft from the nearby Walgreens, the entire arrest — not just the officer’s use of force — was illegal. Fox countered that Gonzalez was detained for not answering officers’ questions.
In the complaint, McKinley said that Gonzalez gave confused and vague answers and would not identify himself when he was stopped at Scout Park, leading to suspicion that Gonzalez was drunk.
Ryu said there were questions of whether it was lawful to detain Gonzalez for resisting arrest and for not answering questions since he appeared to be confused. She asked Fox if there were grounds to arrest someone if their ability to answer questions is compromised.
“Probably not,” Fox replied.
Ryu ended the hearing by saying there were further unspecified questions about Fourteenth and Fourth Amendment claims, but said the core of the case will proceed to trial in November.
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
