Smith v. County of Riverside
Filed 3/21/06 Smith v. County of Riverside CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| ANTHONY SMITH, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE et al., Defendants and Appellants. | E037260 (Super.Ct.No. RIC401054) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Robert George Spitzer, Judge. Affirmed.
Ferguson, Praet & Sherman and Bruce D. Praet for Defendants and Appellants.
Michael P. Stone, Lawyers, Michael P. Stone and Stephen J. Horvath for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Three sheriff's deputies, including Anthony Smith and Raymond Verdugo, were in a foot pursuit of a fleeing suspect. Just as the suspect was about to jump over a wall, Verdugo's gun went off. It now seems to be agreed that the discharge was accidental. In his report, however, Verdugo claimed that he fired in self-defense because the suspect pulled out a knife. Verdugo was fired for dishonesty.
When Smith was interviewed, he stated ‑‑ truthfully ‑‑ that he did not see anything in the suspect's hands when Verdugo's gun went off, though later, after arresting the suspect, he found an auto stereo faceplate in his left pants pocket and a knife in his right pants pocket. Once Smith was reinterviewed and re-reinterviewed, however, there were minor discrepancies between his statements about (1) whether the interaction between Verdugo and the suspect could be described as a â€
