Soakai v. Abdelaziz: The Federal Case That Could Redefine Qualified Immunity

In a 2025 decision that’s already sending shockwaves through the legal and law enforcement communities, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Estate of Soakai v. Abdelaziz that two Oakland police officers are not entitled to qualified immunity after initiating an unauthorized, high-speed "ghost chase" that resulted in the death of an innocent bystander. This case isn't just about one tragic event — it's about whether courts will continue shielding officers from liability when their actions exceed departmental policy and put innocent lives at risk.

The Incident: A Ghost Chase with Deadly Consequences

On June 25, 2022, Officers Walid Abdelaziz and Jimmy Marin-Coronel of the Oakland Police Department engaged in a "ghost chase" — an unauthorized high-speed pursuit without sirens or lights — through a crowded urban area. Their target was a suspected participant in an illegal street rally. The pursuit violated department policy, which allows such chases only for serious violent crimes.

As speeds exceeded 60 mph, the fleeing suspect lost control and crashed near a taco truck, killing 28-year-old Lolomanaia "Lolo" Soakai and injuring several others, including Soakai’s mother. Most disturbingly, the officers allegedly witnessed the aftermath and chose not to summon medical aid. Instead, they left the scene and returned later, claiming they had just arrived.

The Legal Claims: Purpose-to-Harm and State-Created Danger

The plaintiffs brought a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting violations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Two main legal theories were argued:

1. Purpose-to-Harm Theory: The officers pursued the suspect with the intent to harm, even if the harm was directed toward the suspect and not bystanders. The court held that bystanders like Soakai could still bring a claim if the officers’ actions showed intent to harm beyond legitimate law enforcement objectives.

2. State-Created Danger Doctrine: The court found that by initiating a dangerous pursuit and then failing to summon medical aid after the crash, the officers created a perilous situation and then acted with deliberate indifference to the resulting injuries.

Both arguments were enough for the Ninth Circuit to deny qualified immunity — a rare move in modern federal jurisprudence.

Qualified Immunity: Under Fire Again

Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that protects government officials from civil liability unless they violated "clearly established" law. Critics argue it's been used as a blanket shield for police misconduct. In this case, the Ninth Circuit found that both the duty to avoid unjustified harmful pursuits and the duty to summon aid were "clearly established" at the time of the incident.

Judge Bumatay issued a dissent, arguing the court had gone too far and created new, untested theories that exceed existing precedent. His dissent hints that this case could be ripe for Supreme Court review, especially since the doctrines involved are still evolving.

Why This Case Matters

• It expands the scope of who can claim constitutional violations, even if they weren’t the officers' direct target.

• It challenges how far qualified immunity can stretch, especially in situations involving bystander harm.

• It puts pressure on law enforcement agencies to enforce stricter compliance with pursuit policies.

• It signals a judicial willingness to scrutinize officer intent, not just their actions.

The Human Cost Behind the Legal Doctrine

At the center of this case is the death of an innocent man. Lolo Soakai was not involved in any criminal activity. His death was the result of a pursuit that arguably never should have happened — and the officers' alleged failure to provide aid adds moral weight to the legal claim.

This isn’t just a case about policy. It’s a case about how law enforcement interacts with the public, especially during chaotic, high-risk situations. And it’s about how our legal system values — or fails to value — the lives caught in the crossfire.

The Road Ahead

Will the Supreme Court take this case? Possibly. The implications are significant enough. If affirmed, this ruling could open the door to more bystander claims under § 1983 and challenge how qualified immunity is applied in future use-of-force and pursuit-related cases.

At the very least, Soakai v. Abdelaziz will be studied in law schools, cited in federal courts, and discussed in police departments across the country. It's a wake-up call — and a legal milestone.

📌 More case breakdowns and tactical law updates at tacticsandtrials.com