Defendant's Attorney: San Antonio City Attorney's Office

Description: San Antonio, Texas civil rights lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued the defendant on unlawful seizure, First Amendment retailaition, and excessive force theories.

David Bailey and his friends went to downtown San Antonio to “film the police.” With cameras rolling, they approached Officers Oscar Ramos and Christopher Dech, who were guarding an ambulance. An altercation ensued, and Bailey was arrested for interfering with the duties of a public servant.

n April 28, 2018, David Bailey and three friends went to downtown
San Antonio “to film the police.” Angered by the recent arrest of a friend,
they planned for one member of the group to “kind of, be the jerk” to the
police officer, and Bailey would “film them” and “go up and be the . . . nice
citizen, and say, ‘Hey, just leave the – leave the cop alone. Let him do his
job.’” But once the officer expressed thanks, Bailey would tell the officer,
“I’m here because of what you-all [sic] did to Mike Thompson, and I’m, like
Well—well, f*** you.”

San Antonio Police Officers Oscar Ramos and Christopher Dech were
on bike patrol in downtown San Antonio. They responded to an assault at a
bar, and while paramedics administered treatment to the victim inside an
ambulance, the officers positioned themselves outside to keep people away.
The officers didn’t know yet who assaulted the victim, so they were also
using the area to interview witnesses.

Bailey and his group were filming and immediately hostile when they
first approached Ramos and Dech. Bailey gave the officers the middle finger
and said “f*** off” as he walked away. After this initial interaction, most of
the group wandered away, and Decha went back to the bar, leaving Ramos
alone. One of Bailey’s friends, Jack Miller, then walked up to Ramos while
openly carrying a gun. Miller asked Ramos, “What are you shaking your
f***ing head at?” Ramos asked him to watch his language and to back up.
Miller repeatedly asked where he should stand. At first, Ramos told him to
“back up” and “go over there,” motioning with his hand to move backwards.
At that point, Dech returned from the bar to stand beside Ramos in front of
the ambulance. Body camera footage shows that Officer Dech instructed
Bailey and Miller to “just listen” and that the area was an active crime scene
while Bailey and Miller continued to shout over him. Video footage clearly
shows Bailey filming this interaction. Meanwhile, Miller continued to ask,
“[W]here would you like us to stand?” Dech responded, “[S]tand back
behind that line,” and pointed to a line in the sidewalk. Miller immediately
turned away and walked back, motioning to the group to follow and saying,
“[A]lright, let’s go, move.” Bailey, however, did not immediately comply.
Video footage shows him come to a complete stop and turn to face Ramos,
while still standing in front of the line.

Bailey sued Ramos and Dech1 and the City of San Antonio under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, alleging unlawful seizure and arrest, excessive force,
malicious prosecution, violation of his right to record the police, and First
Amendment retaliation. Bailey also brought municipal-liability claims against
the City. All three parties moved for summary judgment, with Ramos arguing
he was entitled to qualified immunity. The district court (1) dismissed all of
Bailey’s claims against the City; (2) dismissed Bailey’s right-to-record claim
because Bailey had conceded it; (3) granted qualified immunity for the
malicious prosecution claim; and (4) denied qualified immunity and
summary judgment for the unlawful arrest, unlawful seizure, First
Amendment retaliation, and excessive force claims because genuine disputes
of material fact existed.

* * *

Where video evidence is available, there is an “exception to the materiality/genuineness rule cited above.”12 “[W]e
are required to ‘view the facts in the light depicted by the videotape.’” 13 The
Supreme Court instructed in Scott v. Harris that “[w]hen opposing parties
tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record,
so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that
version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary
judgment.”14 Thus, “we assign greater weight, even at the summary
judgment stage, to the facts evident from video recordings taken at the
scene.”15 “Inasmuch as that video evidence is inconclusive, however, the
ordinary summary judgment standard applies.”

Outcome: Motion for summary judgment granted.

Affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: