Oakland — In a landmark decision that could reshape legal standards for police accountability in high-speed chases, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied qualified immunity to two Oakland police officers accused of provoking a deadly pursuit that resulted in the death of 27-year-old Lolomania “Lolo” Soakai and the serious injury of his mother, Lavina Soakai, along with several others.
The ruling allows the Soakai family’s federal civil rights lawsuit to proceed and signals that police officers may be held constitutionally liable when their actions show a “purpose to harm” that exceeds any legitimate law enforcement goal—even if innocent bystanders, not suspects, suffer the consequences.
In a 2–1 opinion authored by Judge Susan Graber and joined by Judge Michelle Friedland, the Ninth Circuit rejected the officers’ appeal for qualified immunity, citing allegations that Officers Walid Abdelaziz and Jimmy Marin-Coronel violated both departmental policy and constitutional due process when they chased a suspect through a dense Oakland neighborhood without activating their lights or sirens, failed to report the pursuit, and then fled the scene after the suspect’s vehicle slammed into a crowd of people near a taco stand on International Boulevard.
“This is an important ruling for anyone harmed or killed because of dangerous police pursuits,” said civil rights attorney Patrick Buelna of the Oakland-based firm Pointer & Buelna, LLP, who represents the Soakai family. “The court affirmed that police officers can be held accountable when they engage in reckless chases that put innocent people in harm’s way. And just as importantly, the court clarified that officers have a duty—not a choice—to provide medical care when their actions cause injury.”
According to the lawsuit, the officers spotted a man they believed had participated in a “sideshow” or illegal car rally and initiated a high-speed chase in violation of Oakland Police Department policy, which only permits pursuits under limited circumstances involving violent felonies. The officers failed to alert dispatch or turn on their emergency equipment, a maneuver known internally as a “ghost chase.”
“They ghost chased him through a packed urban corridor,” Buelna explained in an interview. “They knew they weren’t supposed to pursue, so they kept their lights and sirens off, didn’t radio it in—because they didn’t want it on record. And then when the suspect lost control and crashed into people who were just waiting for tacos, they didn’t stop. They drove off.”
That crash killed Soakai, shattered Lavina Soakai’s spine, and injured other members of the family who had stopped at the taco stand after a graduation celebration.
“They saw the injuries, the blood, the devastation—and they didn’t stop to help,” Buelna said. “They didn’t call medical. They didn’t call dispatch. They didn’t write a report. They fled.”
Body camera footage—activated only after the officers returned to the scene following other officers’ arrival—captured them allegedly expressing satisfaction that the suspect appeared to be severely injured or dead.
“That’s what makes this case so extraordinary,” Buelna said. “They were caught saying things like, ‘I hope he dies.’”
In affirming the district court’s ruling, the Ninth Circuit found that the family plausibly alleged a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause under the “purpose to harm” standard established by County of Sacramento v. Lewis (1998). In that case, the Supreme Court held that officers may be held liable if they act with an intent to harm unrelated to law enforcement objectives such as arrest or public safety.
The officers contended that the constitutional violation must involve intent to harm the bystanders specifically, rather than just the suspect. The court rejected that argument, stating: “We see no reason to think that conduct is any less shocking when it injures someone other than the intended target, particularly when harm to a third party is a clear, known risk and is entirely foreseeable.”
Buelna highlighted the significance of this legal clarification.
“Their entire defense hinged on this twisted logic that, because they were trying to harm the suspect—not the innocent people he crashed into—they couldn’t be held liable. But that’s absurd,” he said. “If I throw a grenade into a crowd to hurt one person, and I kill five others in the blast, I don’t get to say, ‘Well, I didn’t mean to kill them.’”
The Ninth Circuit also upheld a second claim under the “state-created danger” doctrine. This legal theory holds that government officials can be liable when they affirmatively place someone in danger and then act with deliberate indifference to that danger. The court found that the officers’ alleged failure to summon emergency medical care after the crash—despite observing victims in critical condition—was sufficient to state a constitutional violation.
“They left the scene,” Buelna said. “They didn’t act like trained first responders. They didn’t help. Then they came back and pretended they had just arrived. And that’s all caught on body camera, where they say things like, ‘Good, hope he dies.’ It’s chilling.”
The court emphasized that, while officers often operate in chaotic, high-pressure situations, that does not absolve them from responsibility when they act outside the bounds of law and conscience.
“Conduct intended to injure in some way unjustifiable by any government interest,” the opinion noted, “is the sort of official action most likely to rise to the conscience-shocking level.”
This ruling marks the first time a plaintiff has successfully met the “purpose to harm” test in a car chase case in the Ninth Circuit.
“This is precedent-setting,” Buelna said. “It shows that when officers intentionally cause harm, they cannot hide behind qualified immunity—even if the harm hits someone they claim they didn’t intend to injure.”
The City of Oakland, also named in the lawsuit, did not appeal the ruling on qualified immunity and is not shielded from potential liability. The two officers were reportedly terminated by the city, but the plaintiffs assert that the City continues to avoid responsibility.
“They know these officers acted egregiously. They fired them. But they still don’t want to compensate the family,” Buelna said. “Their hope was that if qualified immunity applied, they wouldn’t have to pay. That’s the game. But it failed.”
Asked whether he expects the city to continue appealing, Buelna said: “I’m sure they’ll try for en banc review or take it to the Supreme Court. But I feel confident we’ll prevail even there. The law is on our side. The facts are on our side. And basic human decency is on our side.”
The Soakai family, he said, is determined to see the case through. “Lolo’s mother watched her son die in front of her. Her back is broken. Her heart is broken. And she still hasn’t received justice. This decision brings them one step closer.”
The case now returns to the district court for further proceedings, including discovery and potentially trial. “The Ninth Circuit affirmed what most people would consider common sense,” Buelna concluded. “Police can’t initiate a reckless pursuit, cause a deadly crash, leave the scene, and then be immune from accountability. That’s not what justice looks like.”
Pointer & Buelna, LLP, also known as “Lawyers for the People,” has earned national recognition for its work in civil rights litigation, including some of the largest verdicts in Northern California. The firm says it hopes this ruling will become a legal milestone for police accountability in pursuit-related deaths.
“This case isn’t just about Lolo,” said Buelna. “It’s about ensuring that the Constitution still means something—especially when it comes to protecting the lives of innocent people from those who are sworn to serve and protect.”
