Elliot-Park v. Manglona
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
592 F.3d 1003 (2010)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Norbert Babauta crashed into the car being driven by Ae Ja Park Elliot (plaintiff). There were empty beer cans in Babauta’s truck, and Babauta was wobbling and slurring his words, reeked of alcohol, and had bloodshot eyes. Responding law-enforcement officers Jarrod Manglona, Anthony Macaranas, and Michael Langdon (the officers) (defendants) did not administer sobriety tests, investigate whether Babauta was driving drunk, or charge Babauta with driving under the influence. Elliot was Korean. Babauta and the officers were Micronesian. Elliot brought equal-protection and conspiracy-to-violate-civil-rights claims against the officers for failing to investigate a crime or make an arrest because of Elliot’s race. The court held that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity and declined to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the officers argued that citizens are not constitutionally entitled to have police officers arrest third parties; Elliot was not denied police protection, because the officers called an ambulance and questioned bystanders; and even if Elliot’s rights were violated, the officers had qualified immunity because those rights were not clearly established.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kozinski, C.J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Callahan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.