Equal Protection Claim Alleging Racial Profiling by San Jose Officer Survives Dismissal

SAN FRANCISCO (LN) — A federal judge on Monday allowed a civil rights lawsuit alleging that a San Jose police officer racially profiled three Latino men during a traffic stop to proceed, while dismissing municipal liability claims against the city.

U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts denied the city’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim, holding that statistical disparities in the officer’s stops were sufficient to survive the pleading stage.

Alejandro, Daniel, and Jose Flores Gonzalez sued the City of San Jose, the San Jose Police Department, and officers Jack Trevor Leglu, Jose Alvarez, and “Doe No. 1” Cazarez. The brothers allege they were subjected to a pretextual stop and violently detained.

The complaint alleges that Leglu, the officer who initiated the stop, arrested 51% of people who were Latino and stopped 73% of people who were Latino. San Jose is approximately 30% Latino, according to the filing.

The plaintiffs also cited a 2025 California Court of Appeal decision finding a “substantial likelihood” that Leglu exhibited bias toward Latino people.

The court previously dismissed the equal protection claim, calling the allegations “speculative” without data comparing Leglu’s stop rates to the demographics of the areas where he worked.

Defendants argued that because San Jose is the largest city in Northern California, the statistics did not necessarily reflect bias, as the demographics of specific patrol areas might differ average.

Pitts ruled that the statistics were sufficient to plausibly allege an equal protection violation at this stage.

“Discovery will presumably generate more targeted data regarding the defendants’ practices, including the demographics of the specific areas in which Leglu made arrests,” Pitts wrote.

The judge dismissed the plaintiffs’ Monell claim against the city, which requires proof of a widespread policy or custom of unconstitutional conduct.

Pitts held that the statistical disparity in Leglu’s stops pointed to individual action rather than a concerted discriminatory policy. The court also rejected the argument that the city’s failure to discipline Leglu established municipal liability, noting that a single incident is insufficient to prove a policy and that the plaintiffs failed to allege the city was on notice of the violations.

The dismissal of the Monell claim is without prejudice, and plaintiffs may seek leave to re-allege the claim if future discovery generates supporting evidence.