Persecución Ardiente Termina en Muerte Trágica de Sospechosos de Carjacking Vinculados a Homicidio en San Leandro.

What Happened in San Leandro

On Monday, June 12, 2023, law enforcement initiated a high-speed pursuit of a vehicle that had been carjacked in connection with a homicide in Manteca. The suspects were believed to be tied to the killing of Ashley Waters, a 23-year-old woman from Stockton, whose death was under investigation as a homicide. The carjacked vehicle was identified and a multi-vehicle pursuit began.

During the chase, officers deployed Stop Sticks, a tire deflation device designed to immobilize a fleeing vehicle by puncturing its tires. The suspect vehicle veered off the roadway and collided with a tree at high speed. The impact caused the vehicle to erupt in flames. Two of the occupants, both suspects in the carjacking and connected homicide, were killed in the fiery crash.

A teenage girl was also in the vehicle at the time of the crash. She was injured and transported for medical treatment. A firearm was recovered from the vehicle, adding another layer of complexity to the criminal investigation. The presence of the weapon, combined with the vehicle’s connection to the Manteca homicide, raised the possibility that the evidence trail spanned multiple jurisdictions and multiple categories of criminal conduct.

This incident involves a dense intersection of criminal law and civil liability. For any innocent parties affected by the pursuit, the crash, or the underlying crimes, the legal landscape is complex but navigable with the right legal representation.

Innocent Bystander Liability in Police Pursuits

High-speed police pursuits create danger not only for the fleeing suspects and the pursuing officers but also for every motorist, pedestrian, and resident in the path of the chase. When innocent bystanders are injured or killed during a pursuit, California law provides several potential avenues for recovery, though significant legal barriers must be understood and addressed.

The primary source of liability for bystander injuries is the fleeing suspect. Under California law, a person who flees from law enforcement and causes injury to a third party during the flight is civilly liable for those injuries. The fleeing suspect’s conduct, which typically involves extreme speeds, running traffic signals, driving on sidewalks, and other reckless behavior, constitutes negligence per se and often rises to the level of willful and wanton misconduct. If the suspect dies in the pursuit, as happened in this case, injured bystanders can pursue claims against the suspect’s estate.

Beyond the fleeing suspect, innocent bystanders may also look to the law enforcement agency that initiated or continued the pursuit. This is where California’s statutory framework creates a specific and somewhat unusual legal landscape that every pursuit injury victim needs to understand.

The starting point is California Vehicle Code Section 17004. This statute provides individual public employees, including police officers, with personal immunity from civil damages resulting from injuries caused while operating an authorized emergency vehicle during an emergency response or while in immediate pursuit of a suspected law violator. Under Section 17004, an individual officer cannot be sued personally for injuries caused during a properly authorized pursuit. This immunity applies regardless of whether the officer’s driving was negligent.

However, the analysis does not end with officer-level immunity. Vehicle Code Section 17004.7 addresses agency-level immunity, and this is where the legal landscape becomes more nuanced and more favorable to injured bystanders in certain circumstances.

Government Pursuit Policy Liability Under Vehicle Code Section 17004.7

California Vehicle Code Section 17004.7 establishes a conditional immunity framework for public agencies that employ peace officers. Under this statute, a public agency that adopts and promulgates a written vehicle pursuit policy, and provides regular annual training on that policy, is immune from civil liability for injuries caused by a collision involving a vehicle being operated by a suspected law violator who is being pursued by that agency’s officers.

The key word in Section 17004.7 is “conditional.” The immunity is not automatic. The agency must satisfy specific requirements to claim it. Those requirements include adopting a written pursuit policy that meets minimum standards set out in the statute, promulgating that policy to all officers including requiring written certification that each officer has received, read, and understood the policy, and providing regular periodic training on the policy on an annual basis.

The minimum standards for a compliant pursuit policy under Section 17004.7(c) are detailed and substantive. The policy must address when to initiate a pursuit, including defining what constitutes a “pursuit,” articulating the reasons for which a pursuit is authorized, and identifying the issues that should be considered in deciding whether to pursue. The statute specifically requires the policy to address the importance of protecting the public and balancing the known or reasonably suspected offense and the apparent need for immediate capture against the risks to officers, innocent motorists, and others.

The policy must also determine the total number of law enforcement vehicles authorized to participate in a pursuit, establish communication procedures, address the role of supervisors in authorizing and monitoring pursuits, and set standards for when a pursuit should be terminated. These are not optional guidelines. They are statutory minimums that the agency’s policy must meet for the immunity to apply.

When an agency fails to adopt a compliant policy, fails to promulgate it properly, or fails to provide annual training, the conditional immunity under Section 17004.7 may not apply. In that situation, the agency can be held liable under general negligence principles for injuries caused during a pursuit. The question then becomes whether the agency’s decision to initiate, continue, or escalate the pursuit was reasonable under the circumstances.

Even when an agency has a compliant policy on the books, the immunity under Section 17004.7 applies specifically to injuries caused by the collision of the vehicle being operated by the suspect. This means the immunity protects the agency from liability for the suspect’s driving, not necessarily for independent negligent acts by the pursuing officers. If an officer’s own vehicle strikes a bystander, or if the officer’s conduct created a danger separate from the suspect’s flight, different legal standards may apply.

California Vehicle Code Section 17004: Officer Immunity and Its Limits

Vehicle Code Section 17004 provides the foundational immunity for individual officers. The statute reads: “A public employee is not liable for civil damages on account of personal injury to or death of any person or damage to property resulting from the operation, in the line of duty, of an authorized emergency vehicle while responding to an emergency call or when in the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law, or when responding to but not upon returning from a fire alarm or other emergency call.”

This immunity is broad but not limitless. It applies only when the officer is operating in the line of duty, using an authorized emergency vehicle, and engaged in one of the specified activities: responding to an emergency call, pursuing a suspected law violator, or responding to a fire alarm or other emergency. If the officer’s conduct falls outside these parameters, the immunity does not apply.

The distinction between officer immunity under Section 17004 and agency immunity under Section 17004.7 is critical for injured bystanders to understand. Even though the individual officer may be immune, the agency may not be, depending on whether it has satisfied the policy, promulgation, and training requirements of Section 17004.7. This means that an injured bystander’s attorney must investigate the agency’s pursuit policy, its training records, and its compliance history in addition to the facts of the pursuit itself.

Courts interpreting these statutes have examined a range of factual scenarios. In cases where agencies lacked written pursuit policies, or where the policies did not meet the statutory minimums, courts have permitted bystander claims to proceed against the agency. In cases where the agency demonstrated full compliance, the immunity has generally been upheld. The factual investigation required to make this determination is one of the first steps any pursuit injury attorney should take.

Legal Rights of the Injured Teenage Passenger

Legal Rights of the Homicide Victim’s Family

The family of Ashley Waters, the 23-year-old Stockton woman whose death was connected to the carjacked vehicle, occupies a distinct legal position in this case. Ashley Waters was killed in Manteca in the events that preceded the carjacking and the chase. Her family may have a wrongful death claim against the estates of the suspects under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 377.60.

A wrongful death claim allows eligible family members, typically a surviving spouse or domestic partner, children, and in some cases parents or other dependents, to seek compensation for the losses caused by the wrongful killing. Recoverable damages include funeral and burial expenses, loss of the deceased person’s expected future earnings and financial support, loss of companionship, comfort, care, affection, society, and moral support, and the value of household services the deceased would have provided.

Even though the suspects are deceased, their estates remain subject to civil claims. Insurance policies, assets, and any other sources of recovery can be pursued through the probate process. In cases involving criminal conduct, the standard for proving liability in a civil wrongful death case is lower than the criminal standard. The family must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the suspects’ conduct caused Ashley Waters’ death, rather than proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Additionally, a survival action under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 377.30 may allow Ashley Waters’ estate to recover damages for pain and suffering she experienced before death, as well as other losses. Survival actions and wrongful death claims serve different legal purposes and are often pursued simultaneously.

The Broader Problem of Police Pursuit Safety

Stop Sticks Deployment and Tactical Liability Questions

In this incident, officers deployed Stop Sticks, a tire deflation device, during the pursuit. Stop Sticks are designed to puncture the tires of a fleeing vehicle, causing a gradual deflation that slows the vehicle and brings it to a stop. When deployed correctly and in an appropriate location, Stop Sticks are considered a less-lethal intervention tool that reduces the risks associated with extended high-speed pursuits.

However, the deployment of tire deflation devices is not without risk. If the fleeing driver loses control immediately after the tires are deflated, the resulting crash can injure or kill the occupants of the fleeing vehicle as well as any bystanders in the vicinity. The location of the deployment matters: deploying Stop Sticks in an area with heavy pedestrian traffic, near an intersection, or on a curve increases the risk that a loss of control will cause harm to innocent parties.

Law enforcement agencies train officers on proper Stop Sticks deployment procedures, including selecting safe deployment locations, positioning the deploying officer for safety, and coordinating with pursuing units. If the deployment in this case deviated from training or department policy, and if that deviation contributed to the severity of the crash or the injuries suffered by the teenage passenger, it could factor into any civil liability analysis.

It is important to note that the immunity provisions of Vehicle Code Section 17004 and 17004.7 apply to the operation of emergency vehicles and the pursuit itself. Whether Stop Sticks deployment falls within the scope of these immunities, or whether it constitutes a separate tactical decision subject to different legal standards, can be a contested legal question that depends on the specific facts and the jurisdiction.

Why Prompt Investigation Matters in Pursuit Crash Cases

Police pursuit cases are among the most evidence-intensive categories of personal injury litigation. The critical evidence includes dashcam and body camera footage from pursuing officers, dispatch recordings and CAD logs showing the timeline and communications during the pursuit, the agency’s written pursuit policy and training records, the individual officers’ pursuit training histories and certifications, witness statements from bystanders who observed the chase or the crash, physical evidence from the crash scene including vehicle positions, fire patterns, and road conditions, and medical records documenting the injuries sustained by the teenage passenger and any other parties.

Much of this evidence is controlled by the law enforcement agency involved in the pursuit. Under California law, a victim’s attorney can obtain this evidence through discovery in a civil lawsuit and through California Public Records Act requests. However, some of this evidence may be subject to destruction under routine retention policies if not preserved through a timely litigation hold letter. Acting quickly after a pursuit crash ensures that critical evidence is identified and preserved before it is lost.

The criminal investigation into the Manteca homicide and the carjacking adds another dimension. Evidence gathered in the criminal case, including forensic analysis of the firearm, witness interviews, cell phone records, and surveillance footage, may also be relevant to civil claims. Coordinating the civil investigation with the criminal timeline requires experienced legal counsel.