Jury Awards $1.35M in San Jose Police Protest Shooting Case

Case Background

Kyle Johnson participated in George Floyd protests near San Jose City Hall on the evening of May 30, 2020. His grandmother's participation in the 1965 Bloody Sunday march from Selma inspired him to join the demonstrations. No curfew was in effect that night. San Jose Police Officer James Adgar was stationed near City Hall with a 40mm projectile impact weapon. After someone threw a plastic water bottle that landed harmlessly on the ground, officers began deploying less lethal weapons against the crowd. Johnson ran toward City Hall to flee and a projectile struck the back of his leg. He never received any dispersal order before the shooting and was never arrested or charged with any crime. Johnson filed his federal lawsuit on March 16, 2021, after the City rejected his government tort claim.

Cause

San Jose Police Officer James Adgar shot Kyle Johnson with a 40mm foam baton projectile while Johnson peacefully protested near San Jose City Hall during George Floyd demonstrations on May 30, 2020. Johnson alleged that Adgar used excessive force against him without justification and retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly.

Injury

The projectile caused a large circular wound and severe bruising on Johnson's leg, which led to the formation of a blood clot. Johnson required multiple emergency room visits and ongoing medical treatment, including medication. His risk of blood clots increased permanently, and he anticipated needing medication for the rest of his life. Before the incident, Johnson worked as an active physical education teacher and sports coach. His mobility suffered serious impairment, and he could not walk or exercise normally for approximately three months following the shooting. He continued to experience pain and reduced mobility from the blood clots.

Damages Sought

Johnson sought general damages for bodily injury, physical pain, and emotional distress. He requested special damages for past and future medical expenses. The Plaintiff also pursued civil penalties under California Civil Code sections 51.7 and 52, statutory damages under California Civil Code sections 52.1 and 52, punitive damages against individual Defendants, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

Plaintiff: Kyle Johnson

Defendant: City of San Jose and James Adgar

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

Johnson's attorneys argued that the San Jose Police Department responded to peaceful civil rights demonstrations with excessive force. They contended that officers fired projectile impact weapons at individuals who posed no threat but advocated political viewpoints that some SJPD members opposed. The Plaintiff maintained that his grandmother's participation in the Bloody Sunday march from Selma in 1965 inspired him to make his voice heard during the protests.

Defense counsel denied that any police officer intentionally used force against Johnson. The City argued that Johnson's own negligent or criminal conduct was the sole cause of his injuries. The defense also claimed that officers were responding to an affray and breach of peace, making their crowd control actions legally privileged.

Claims

Fourth Amendment Excessive Force

Johnson alleged that Officer Adgar subjected him to unreasonable seizure and excessive force by shooting him with a less lethal firearm while he demonstrated peacefully without committing any crime. He claimed the Defendants acted under color of state law and followed customs, policies, and practices of the City and SJPD that proximately caused his constitutional violations.

First Amendment Retaliation

The Plaintiff argued that Defendants shot him in retaliation for exercising his protected rights of free speech and assembly while protesting police brutality. He maintained that the Defendants' desire to retaliate against protestors and deter such protests substantially motivated their use of excessive force.

California Bane Act

Johnson claimed that Defendants interfered with his constitutional rights through violent acts, threats, intimidation, or coercion. He asserted that Defendants intended to use unreasonable and excessive force against him as punishment for exercising his First Amendment rights on the subject of police brutality.

Battery

The Plaintiff alleged that Defendants intentionally touched him or caused less lethal projectiles to touch him using unreasonable and excessive force without his consent.

Negligence

Johnson contended that Defendants knew or should have known that shooting him with a projectile would injure him and that such force was unreasonable under the circumstances. He also alleged failure to adequately train SJPD officers in crowd control and use of less lethal firearms.

Defense

The City of San Jose denied that James Adgar used excessive or unreasonable force against Johnson. Defense counsel argued that the Plaintiff failed to prove the City had a widespread custom or practice of allowing police officers to use less lethal weapons indiscriminately. The Defendants maintained that police officers acted appropriately while responding to civil unrest where members of the crowd threw objects at officers. The City asserted multiple affirmative defenses including self-defense, defense of others, and contributory negligence by the Plaintiff.

Jury Verdict

The jury returned its verdict on January 22, 2025, finding unanimously in favor of Kyle Johnson on multiple claims against Officer James Adgar. On the Fourth Amendment excessive force claim, the jury found that Adgar acted under color of law, used excessive force against Johnson, and seized Johnson, with his conduct substantially causing harm to the Plaintiff. On the First Amendment retaliation claim, jurors determined that Johnson participated in constitutionally protected activity when struck by the projectile, that Adgar acted under color of law, and that retaliation for Johnson's exercise of free speech or assembly substantially motivated Adgar to shoot the 40mm projectile that struck Johnson. The jury also found that Adgar's indiscriminate use of projectiles would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in protest activities.

Regarding the California Bane Act claim, the jury found that Adgar acted violently against Johnson, committed acts of violence to prevent Johnson from being free from unreasonable seizure, and committed acts of violence to prevent Johnson from exercising his right to free speech and assembly or to retaliate against him for exercising those rights. On the battery claim, jurors determined that Adgar caused Johnson to be touched with intent to harm or offend, used unreasonable force, and that Johnson did not consent. The negligence claim succeeded as well, with the jury finding that Adgar negligently shot the projectile that struck Johnson, that Johnson suffered harm, and that Adgar's negligence substantially factored in causing that harm.

The jury rejected all claims against the City of San Jose, finding no widespread or longstanding custom or practice of allowing police officers to use less lethal weapons indiscriminately.

On damages, the jury awarded Johnson $1,353,313 in total compensation. The jury allocated fault at 78 percent to Defendant James Adgar, 0 percent to Plaintiff Kyle Johnson, 17 percent to a person identified in Exhibit 552a, and 5 percent to a person identified in Exhibit 553.

Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entered judgment on January 31, 2025, ordering that $1,353,313 be entered for Plaintiff Kyle Johnson against Defendant James Adgar, with judgment entered for Defendant City of San Jose on all claims alleged against it.

Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com