Opinion ID: 2754539
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jose Alexander Ventura

Text: On December 13, 2007, a Chino police officer stopped Jose Alexander Ventura for a minor traffic violation. The first fifteen minutes of the stop were audio-recorded. An officer ran a warrant check and discovered an outstanding 1994 warrant obtained by the L.A. City defendants for “Jose Ventura.”4 The police dispatcher described the warrant subject as a Hispanic male who was 6'1 tall, weighed 200 pounds, and had black hair and brown eyes. Ventura showed the officer a driver’s license that indicated he was 5'6 tall and weighed 180 pounds. On the audio tape, an officer can be heard asking Ventura to step out of his vehicle. After Ventura complied, another officer arrived and began questioning him. The audio of this questioning recorded Ventura agreeing with an officer’s he was. We construe all disputed issues of fact in favor of the non-moving party. See Alexander v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 29 F.3d 1355, 1362 (9th Cir. 1994). 4 The Third Amended Complaint claims the warrant was for “Jose Ventura Gonzalez Perez,” but the record shows the name on the warrant was “Jose Ventura.” GANT V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 9 suggestion that he is 5'11. Ventura alleges that the officers knew he was 5'6 but coached him to “parrot back” that he was 5'11. It is clear from the audio recording that English is Ventura’s second language. One of the officers also incorrectly told Ventura that the warrant includes Ventura’s Social Security number. Ventura was arrested. The Chino Police Department does not book or hold felony arrestees, but Ventura was transported to the Chino police station while an officer obtained the warrant abstract.5 The warrant did not contain any unique identifiers such as a CII number or Social Security number. Ventura was then transported to San Bernardino’s West Valley Detention Center (“WVDC”), where he was booked and remained for approximately four days. During booking at WVDC, officials took Ventura’s fingerprints using Live Scan and electronically transferred them to CDOJ. The parties dispute whether Live Scan could have been used to determine whether the warrant was meant for Ventura because the warrant for “Jose Ventura” did not include a CII number. But in any case, the San Bernardino defendants argue that the Live Scan report was not returned until January 24, 2008, approximately five weeks after Ventura was arrested. Ventura claims he told a WVDC officer that he was not the warrant’s true subject, but the San Bernardino defendants deny Ventura complained that his arrest was a case of mistaken identity. 5 A warrant abstract is a summary of the warrant that typically contains the warrant number; the charge; the court or agency of issuance; the subject’s name, address, and description; the bail amount; and the name of the issuing magistrate or authority. Cal. Penal Code § 850. 10 GANT V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES After spending four days at WVDC, Ventura was transferred to the L.A. County jail, where he was held for two more days. Ventura claims he protested his detention to L.A. County jail officials, but the L.A. County defendants dispute this. On December 19, 2007, six days after his arrest, Ventura appeared before a superior court judge who ordered his release because a manual comparison showed that his fingerprints did not match the warrant subject’s prints.6 He was given a judicial clearance form when he was released. The form states that he was 5'7 and weighed 320 pounds.