Yount v. City of Sacramento
In the Supreme Court of California
From the Superior Court of Sacramento County
Cite as 2008 SOS 2918

Civil Rights Claim not Barred by No Contest Plea

In the early morning hours of March 10, 2001, Daniel Powell, a private security guard, noticed a man near the 7-Eleven store on La Riviera Drive attempting to get in his car.  The man, later identified as Yount, appeared to be under the influence of alcohol.  Powell flagged down Sacramento Police Officer Samuel Davis, and pointed to a white vehicle in which Yount was attempting to drive off.

Officer Davis approached Yount and noticed that his eyes were glassy and he appeared to be inebriated.  Davis asked Yount to step out of his vehicle.  As Yount opened the door, he lost his balance and fell onto Davis.  Yount smelled of alcohol, so Officer Davis directed him to get into the back seat of his police car.  Initially, there Yount offered resistance to get in the back seat.  Shortly, Young was able to get to the back seat with Davis's assistance.

Once in the back seat, Yount's attitude changed.  He began banging around in the car, screaming obscenities and directing racial slurs at Officer Davis, who is Black.

Finally, Officer Davis pulled Yount out of the patrol car, got him on the ground and, with the assistance of nearby security guards, managed to place him in handcuffs.

Minutes later, Sacramento Police Officers Daniel Swafford and Thomas Shrum and California State University Police Officer Debra Hatfield arrived to provide backup assistance.

As the officers were filling out paperwork for a DUI report, Yount again became hostile and violent in the back of the patrol car.   He was kicking, screaming, yelling obscenities and banging his head against the passenger window.

In the succeeding events, Yount still offered resistance and become more violent.  The four officers tried to subdue him until one of them discharged his pistol when he really intended to fire his Taser gun and accidentally shot Yount in the left buttock.

Following the gloomy event, a criminal complaint charged Yount with:

1. Violently resisting all four officers in the performance of their duties (Penal Code, § 69);


2. Battery of a peace officer (id., § 243, subdivision (c)(2); and


3. Two counts of driving under the influence (Veh. Code, §§ 23152, subds. (a), (b); counts 3 and 4).

On June 19, 2001, Yount pleaded no contest to Penal Code Section 148, and to the DUI charge.  The remaining counts were dismissed.  Yount was placed on probation for five years and ordered to serve 270 days in county jail and pay specified fines.

On the other hand, alleging he was the victim of excessive force by Officer Shrum, Yount filed a multi-count complaint alleging civil rights violations under U.S.C. section 1983 as well as civil tort theories of relief in the Superior Court of Sacramento County.

Defendants twice brought motions for summary judgment, arguing that the section 1983 claim must be dismissed as an improper collateral attack on Yount’s criminal conviction under the authority of the Heck ruling.

The trial court then issues a ruling barring Yount's civil lawsuit based on the Hecks principles, explaining that the obstruction conviction implied that the officer was acting lawfully and not with excessive force.

The case was dragged to the Court of Appeals.

On appeal, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s ruling.  The Court of Appeal reasoned that, in general, if the evidence discloses at least one violation of section 148 independent of and discrete from the officer’s alleged misconduct, Heck does not apply, inasmuch as that remaining act could be used to sustain the conviction.

The court concluded that Yount’s claims for damages did not impugn his conviction for resisting the officers because, even if Yount prevailed in his civil suit, his criminal conviction could be sustained by any one of Yount’s other acts of resistance that was unrelated to the shooting.

The issue reached the Supreme Court of California, which now considers the case.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court of California affirmed and reversed in part the ruling of the court of appeal and orders the remand of the case for further proceedings, and held, thus:

In this case, Yount’s civil rights and tort claims against the officer were barred to the extent that the former claimed the officer was not entitled to use force at all.

However, Yount’s civil rights and tort claims were not barred to the extent that the former challenged the use of deadly force.  The court relates that the use of deadly force was not reasonable under the circumstances and Yount’s claim would not necessarily imply the invalidity of his criminal conviction.

Offender's civil rights claim was not barred by no contest plea to obstructing officer from his lawful duties.