Former Oakland officers take fatal 'ghost chase' case to Supreme Court

OAKLAND, Calif. - Two former Oakland police officers have taken a deadly "ghost chase" case to the US Supreme Court, hoping to persuade the justices that they did not violate a bystander’s due process rights when a fleeing suspect they were chasing killed an innocent bystander who was getting tacos with his mother. 

What they're saying:

The officers, Walid Abdelaziz and Jimmy Marin-Coronel, who both resigned in March 2025, are arguing that they should not be held financially liable for the death of 28-year-old Lolomanaia "Lolo" Soakai, who was killed in a freak accident on June 25, 2022, when a motorcycle landed on top of him and broke his mother's back following an unauthorized police chase. 

During the pursuit, the suspect's car ended up slamming into a row of parked cars and motorcycles, which then landed on and crushed Soakai. The officers ended up leaving the scene without providing medical aid and circled back later, feigning surprise. 

The city of Oakland is not officially part of this Supreme Court effort, which the city attorney's office emphasized in an email to KTVU, referring all other questions to the officers' motion. 

However, Soakai's civil rights attorney, Patrick Buelna, said that effectively, the city of Oakland is paying for the attorneys' fees for the two officers who brought the case to the Supreme Court, and it is the city of Oakland who will ultimately be responsible for the wrongful death suit filed by Soakai's family against the city.

A spokeswoman for the city attorney's office explained that Oakland is covering that cost because California law requires the city to defend and indemnify its employees for liabilities that come with the scope of employment, except for punitive damages. 

Settlement talks scheduled

What's next:

As these legal arguments sit with the Supreme Court, the city of Oakland and Soakai's family have also agreed to head into settlement talks by March 3. 

Buelna pointed out that those discussions will likely come after the Supreme Court makes a decision. 

He said that he is asking that his client's mother, Lavinia Soakai, and three relatives, who were all injured that day, be paid at least $20 million. 

If a settlement can't be reached, a trial date has been set for Aug. 18. 

The city attorney did not grant a request to be interviewed, although a spokeswoman answered questions about the case through email.

The former officers' attorneys, David Newdorf and Richard Osman, did not respond for comment. 

Bystanders v. suspect

The question the former officers want the Supreme Court to answer: Do bystanders who are injured when a fleeing criminal suspect loses control of his car and crashes into them have a Fourteenth Amendment ‘due process’ claim against the officers for injuries the officers didn't intend? 

The officers want the justices to rule no.

What they're saying:

The officers' attorneys wrote that when a police car chases a suspect at a high rate of speed, loses control and slams into the crowd, the officers may have exercised bad judgment, and might even be negligent or reckless. 

But even so, the attorneys argued in their Supreme Court motion, the innocent bystanders have no right to hold the officers accountable under the Constitution, or under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, because they have to show the police acted with "intent to harm," which has a very high standard of fault. 

Courts have set the bar so high because the intent has been to protect against the most "sadistic" and "malicious" abuses of government authority, the lawyers wrote. Every other court, other than the Ninth Circuit, has ruled that bystanders asserting a due process claim must show the police intended to harm them. 

By eliminating this requirement, the Ninth Circuit "opened the door" for victims of unintended, accidental injuries to bring due process claims, the officers' attorneys wrote. 

The other side:

Buelna holds the opposite point of view.

"The defendants argue that because the officers intended to harm only the suspect, but not the innocent bystander, they should win," Buelna said, characterizing the officers' arguments submitted to the Supreme Court in October 2025. "They concede that the officers intended to harm the suspect. They argue that because the officers intended to harm the suspect, not the innocent bystanders, they should win."

Buelna has argued that in this situation, the officers acted so recklessly while chasing a suspect – which led to the death of an innocent bystander — that their actions "shocked the conscience." 

Buelna won on this point when he argued it before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the justices ruled in May 2025 that Oakland police can be held responsible when bystanders are injured and killed during reckless pursuits. 

In a divided opinion, the Ninth Circuit held that bystanders who were injured by a criminal suspect fleeing police did not need to show that police intended to harm them. The ruling was limited because it only applies to what is considered a "reckless" pursuit. 

However, the officers, as well as the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities, which joined filed an amicus brief, noted that many other circuits have ruled opposite the "Ninth Circuit’s ever-widening application of this problematic doctrine."

Specifics of the case

The backstory:

The specifics of the case are this: Abdelaziz and Marin-Coronel were chasing Arnold Azael Linaldi of Oakland, then 19, in a Nissan 350Z after they said he was coming home from a sideshow on International Boulevard.

The officers were not authorized to chase the teen, as Oakland police pursuit policy mandates that police can only chase a suspect who is believed to be responsible for a violent forcible crime or has a gun. An authorized pursuit is often referred to as a "ghost chase." 

As a result of the pursuit, Linaldi crashed into a row of parked cars and motorcycles, which fell and crushed Soakai as he was out with family after celebrating a friend's graduation. Soakai's mother broke her back. Two cousins went to the hospital.

The two officers did not provide medical aid, fled the scene, and then, circled back later acting surprised, according to court records. They were also heard on body camera, court records indicate, laughing and saying "I hope he dies," referring to Linaldi.

Linaldi was eventually charged with vehicular manslaughter and his case is still pending.

Pretty quickly, the police department moved to fire Abdelaziz and Marin-Coronel. The officers were on administrative leave for about three years. This week, Oakland police told KTVU that Abdelaziz resigned effective March 27, 2025, and Marin-Coronel resigned effective March 26, 2025. 

Oakland police said the department submitted the officers' names to California's POST decertification list in 2022, which would mean that they can no longer be peace officers in the state. But their names do not appear on the website. A POST spokeswoman said this is because it is still a "pending open investigation."

Slippery slope to public damages 

Why you should care:

The former officers have support for their Supreme Court argument. 

The California Association of Joint Powers Authorities filed a "friend of the court," or amicus curiae, stating there are 82,000 police officers and nearly 250,000 state employees in California, and if Soakai's argument prevails, then this will cost government entities a lot of money. 

"Broadly imposing such liability on a vast range of official conduct simply because it negligibly increases some risks to some members of the public is a slippery slope to highly undesirable outcomes," attorney Brendan J. Begley wrote. "States and local government agencies are and will continue to be forced to expend substantial public resources in defending these types of claims, which typically result in protracted litigation."

Plus, Begley wrote: "If left uncorrected, the perpetuation of this invalid and poorly defined exception, as well as the Ninth Circuit’s ill-advised expansion of it, will harm public entities throughout the nation."

Begley said if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Soakai, then on the one hand, some police officers might "employ more aggressive and dangerous tactics in the hope of ending the pursuit of a fleeing suspect more quickly." And on the other hand, other police officers might "refrain from providing certain services that might require quick judgments with limited information" or "be paralyzed by indecisiveness in trying to determine which path would most likely diminish the risk of such liability."

Seeking $20M

In Buelna's opinion, the city of Oakland would not be opening itself up to future massive payouts if bystanders are injured or killed, because Soakai's case is so specific to the recklessness of these particular officers.

But this particular case could still result in a massive payout. 

"I think they don't want to pay $20 million to the family," he said. "That's what I think. It makes me tremendously sad they're trying to use a legal loophole to try to get out from doing the right thing. These people weren't doing anything. We all agree that this is just a family that was returning home from a graduation. They need to do right by this family." 

It's also not lost on Buelna that there is now a conservative majority of justices on the Supreme Court, three of the nine appointed by President Donald Trump. 

"They hope that a Trump-packed Supreme Court will alleviate liability from their officers' egregious criminal actions," Buelna said. "That is their hope. They don't have to pay us. They'll say that they did wrong, but they don't want to pay. They're relying on, which is sad for the city of Oakland, to rely on a conservative court to try to alleviate liability."