Raymond Michael Cimo v. Immigration & Naturalization Service United States of America Stephen H. Peterson

Citations: 16 F.3d 1039; 94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1163; 94 Daily Journal DAR 2054; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 2608; 1994 WL 45440Docket: 92-55811

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; February 17, 1994; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Raymond Michael Cimo appealed a judgment from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, which found the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the United States, and Stephen H. Peterson not liable for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The case arose from a March 14, 1989, incident where Peterson, a suspect fleeing from border patrol agents, collided with Cimo's vehicle, resulting in serious injuries to Cimo.

Prior to the crash, border patrol agent David Garrett observed Peterson's suspicious behavior after he exited Interstate 15. Garrett decided to follow Peterson, suspecting involvement in alien smuggling. After several observations, including a nervous demeanor of the vehicle's occupants, agents attempted to pull Peterson over. However, Peterson accelerated and fled, leading to a high-speed pursuit that lasted approximately two minutes and covered about 2.7 miles, reaching speeds up to 100 mph. Eventually, Peterson exited the freeway and ran a stop sign, colliding with Cimo's car. Peterson and his passenger attempted to flee but were apprehended shortly after.

Cimo filed a complaint for damages in December 1990, but Peterson was never served. Following a three-day bench trial, the district court determined that the border patrol agents acted reasonably and non-negligently during the pursuit. The court's findings were reviewed for clear error and were affirmed. The FTCA requires that any determination of the United States' tort liability be based on the state law where the incident occurred.

When the United States faces litigation for the actions of federal law enforcement officers, courts assess liability based on analogous state laws. In cases such as Aguilar v. United States, the determination of liability for federal officers often aligns with the liability caps established for state employees' torts, as illustrated in Doggett v. United States, where Nevada's $50,000 cap was applied. The scope of employment for federal personnel is evaluated under state law, as seen in Louie v. United States, and the duty of the federal government regarding off-duty personnel is analyzed under respective state statutes.

California law allows public entities to be held liable for negligent vehicle operation by law enforcement but provides governmental immunity for decisions to engage in police chases. The court, referencing City of Sacramento and Bratt v. City and County of San Francisco, clarified that while high-speed chases are not inherently unreasonable, the key consideration is whether such actions pose an unreasonable risk to third parties. 

In this case, the district court determined that the federal agents' decision to pursue a suspect, Peterson, was reasonable given the circumstances—light traffic and a dry roadway on a freeway. The plaintiff contended that the risk to third parties outweighed the need for immediate apprehension and argued that federal officers lacked authority for state-law violations like auto theft. However, the court disagreed, affirming that the officers had legitimate federal authority to investigate potential alien smuggling, which justified their pursuit of Peterson. The court ultimately affirmed the district court's findings, concluding that the officers were not negligent in their actions.