Yong Ho Choi v. Randall Gaston, Anaheim Chief of Police City of Anaheim D.O. Helmick, California Highway Patrol Commissioner, Sued Only in His Individual Capacity California Highway Patrol, Fifty Unknown Named Officers And/or Employees Mark Brucks, Anaheim Police Officer Christopher Marshall, Anaheim Police Officerbryan Santy, Anaheim Police Officer Bradley Thurman, Anaheim Police Officer Frank Harris, Anaheim Police Officer Joe Reiss, Lt., Anaheim Police Officer David Davis, Anaheim Police Officer Brian Carrion, Anaheim Police Officer David Comstock, Anaheim Police Officer Ron C. Brame, Chp Officer William Long, Chp Officer Sterling Sechrist, Chp Officer Jose Diaz, Chp Officer Anne Johnston, Chp Officer

Citation: 220 F.3d 1010Docket: 98-56854

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; August 8, 2000; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Choi filed a lawsuit against multiple defendants, including police officers and the city of Anaheim, alleging violations of his constitutional and statutory rights due to his detention and arrest while they searched for a suspect involved in a shooting. The Ninth Circuit Court reviewed the summary judgment issued by the district court and found it partially inappropriate. The court determined that reasonable minds could differ regarding the validity of Choi's stop and arrest. Choi argued that the Anaheim officers lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause, contending that he was detained based on racial profiling, as he was Asian, while the suspect was of a different ethnicity. The officers justified their actions by claiming Choi matched the suspect's description. Key facts included Choi being near a man fleeing the scene and his clothing being somewhat similar to that of the suspect, despite notable differences in age and ethnicity. The court concluded that the evidence presented warranted a jury's assessment on whether the officers had reasonable suspicion to detain Choi and probable cause to arrest him. Additionally, it noted that the transition from a stop to an arrest is not clearly defined and depends on the circumstances, referencing previous case law to support its decision. 

Qualified immunity protects CHP Officer Brame in the arrest of Choi, as he reasonably believed the Anaheim officers' statement about Choi fleeing from a stolen vehicle, despite it being inaccurate. Choi's claim of a due process violation due to an unduly suggestive field identification procedure was deemed insufficient, as the government’s interest in prompt witness identification outweighs the suggestiveness, leading to the district court's summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Regarding Monell liability, Choi failed to provide evidence of a custom of racial or ethnic stereotyping by Anaheim police, preventing a jury question on the city's liability. Summary judgment on the conspiracy claim was also granted because Choi lacked evidence of any agreement among the defendants to violate his civil rights. Additionally, Choi's claim concerning the violation of California Penal Code § 851.5 was dismissed as he did not request a phone call from the officers. The court reversed the district court’s judgment on Choi's first cause of action against the individual Anaheim officers and remanded for trial, while affirming the judgment on all other claims. 

Background facts detail a shooting incident involving CHP Officer Donald Burt and subsequent police responses, including a description of the suspect and the discovery of the abandoned CHP vehicle, leading to Choi’s arrest.

At 9:43 p.m., officers observed two men at Lincoln and Euclid, approximately 0.2 miles from a Ford dealership, fitting the descriptions of suspects in a nearby incident. One man was identified as Yong Ho Choi, a 32-year-old Korean national, who was walking to pick up mail. Choi was wearing a striped white shirt, blue jeans, and white athletic shoes. When approached by the officers, who drew their weapons, Choi was handcuffed and made to lie on the ground without being questioned. Officers took his wallet, and he was subsequently detained alongside another man.

Officer Ronald Brame arrived shortly after and received information that the two men had been seen running from an abandoned vehicle near a crime scene where Officer Burt had been fatally shot. The officers on the scene communicated that Choi and the other man matched descriptions given by witnesses. A fellow officer, Scott Gore, later identified Choi as the man he had seen driving a CHP vehicle. Around 10:10 p.m., police radio confirmed Gore's identification of both men.

Choi was then placed outside Brame's vehicle and identified by multiple witnesses as the man who had been seen with Officer Burt before the shooting. He was taken to the City of Fullerton jail, where he requested to make a phone call but was only allowed to do so after five hours. He remained in custody until July 15. Hung Mai, later convicted of Officer Burt's murder, was sentenced to death in 2000.

On September 4, 1997, Choi filed an amended complaint against various law enforcement officers and the cities of Anaheim and Fullerton. The district court granted partial summary judgment for the defendants, concluding that they had reasonable suspicion to stop Choi and probable cause to arrest him. The court also ruled in favor of the defendants regarding their use of reasonable force and dismissed Choi's claims related to Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations, suggestive field identification procedures, defamation, conspiracy, and several state law claims including assault and false imprisonment. The court deemed it unnecessary to address the defendants' qualified immunity defense and ruled that Choi was not denied a right under California Penal Code § 851.5 to make a telephone call, ultimately entering final judgment for all defendants.

On appeal, the analysis focused on whether Choi provided sufficient evidence to challenge the legality of his stop and arrest under the Fourth Amendment. The court emphasized the need for reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop, referencing a Supreme Court standard. The Anaheim police had minimal information indicating Choi matched the description of a suspect, as they generalized from a specific individual identified by name, Phu Nguyen, without any factual basis to connect Choi to that individual beyond his proximity to an abandoned vehicle. Furthermore, the officers failed to ask Choi any questions during the encounter, leading to an early determination of custodial status that resembled an arrest. The court concluded that there was enough evidence for a jury to consider whether the Anaheim police justified their actions as a proper Terry stop and whether they arrested Choi without probable cause.

To establish Monell liability against the City of Anaheim, Choi must demonstrate that a city-sponsored custom, created by those with authority to set official policy, displayed deliberate indifference to his constitutional right against arrest without probable cause. The case raises the issue of whether there is evidence of a custom among Anaheim police to arrest individuals based on racial or ethnic stereotypes. This issue is contextualized by the broader problem of misidentification within minority communities, illustrated by the mistaken identity of Choi, a Korean man, with a Vietnamese teenager due to their perceived similarities as "Asian" to the majority community. The population of Asian/Pacific Islanders in California in 1996 was significant, with many residing in Los Angeles, Riverside, and Orange Counties, including approximately 25,000 in Anaheim. The potential for police to treat individuals from this demographic as interchangeable raises concerns about arbitrary arrests. However, the case record only indicates a single incident of mistaken identity without evidence of a systemic custom of such stereotyping, suggesting that the necessary element to establish the City's liability is absent.