CA9: Passenger also shot in effort to stop vehicle was seized under 4A; SJ denied on reasonableness of force

A vehicle passenger who was not intentionally targeted by the officers had a cognizable Fourth Amendment interest under Brower v. County of Inyo and Brendlin v. California. His freedom of movement was terminated when the officers intentionally shot at the vehicle in which he was a passenger to stop its movement so he was seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. It mattered not whether the Officers intended to shoot the passenger or whether they even knew he was present in the vehicle. Under clearly established precedent at the time, he was seized. In addition, summary judgment is denied the officers on whether deadly force was required. When the officers opened fire, the vehicle was slowly making a three point turn 15-20 feet away from them and none were in danger. They lacked an objectively reasonable basis to fear for their own safety, because they could simply have stepped back or to the side to avoid being injured. Villanueva v. California, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 2391 (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2021).