On May 9, 2006, plaintiff Deborah Hooper, an unemployed 43 year old, was suspected of shoplifting and detained by a loss prevention officer at a Longs Drug store in Encinitas. As a result, San Diego County Deputy Sheriff Kirk Terrell was dispatched to the store to investigate. Terrell took statements from Hooper and the loss prevention officer, and gave Hooper a Notice to Appear in criminal court. Terrell and Hooper then walked outside to the parking lot, where Terrell informed Hooper that he was going to conduct a search of her vehicle. A struggle ensued and Terrell deployed his canine German Sheppard, who was in Terrell’s police vehicle. The dog ultimately bit Hooper on the head. Terrell then arrested Hooper for possession of methamphetamine and resisting a police officer. Hooper pleaded guilty to resisting a police officer and petty theft of merchandise from the drug store. The police later dropped the charge of possession of methamphetamine. Hooper sued Terrell; his supervisor, Sheriff William Kolender; and their employers, the county of San Diego and the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department. Hooper alleged that Terrell’s actions constituted excessive force and that the remaining defendants were liable for Terrell’s actions. Hooper claimed when Terrell allegedly discovered methamphetamine in her vehicle, he became aggressive and attempted to grab her left arm. She claimed that when she jerked her arm away, a struggle ensued, causing her and Terrell to wind up on the ground. However, Hooper claimed she stopped resisting when Terrell instructed her to do so, but she then heard Terrell call for his canine dog. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Terrell had no reason to call his dog because Hooper had already stopped resisting. Thus, counsel contended that Terrell used excessive force by deploying his police dog against Hooper. Terrell claimed that Hooper was under the influence of methamphetamine at the time of the incident and that Hooper physically resisted his attempts to handcuff her. He also claimed that he felt Hooper attempting to remove his gun from his holster when they were on the ground. Terrell alleged that since he thought Hooper planned to shoot him so that she could then escape, he warned Hooper to let go of his gun or he would release his canine partner. He claimed that when Hooper continued to resist, he deployed the dog. The defense’s toxicology expert testified that Hooper was under the influence of methamphetamine at the time of the incident. He stated that he based this on Hooper’s testimony that she snorted a line or two of methamphetamine earlier in the day; the toxicology results, which showed 317 ng/ml of meth in Hooper’s blood; and witness testimony describing Hooper as “out of control” and displaying unusual strength. The toxicologist opined that based on these findings, the methamphetamine in Hooper’s system impaired her judgment, made her more aggressive and paranoid, and led to the altercation with Terrell. The defense’s police procedures expert testified that the use of any force, up to and including lethal force, is appropriate when a suspect tries to grab an officer’s gun and that a warning should be given prior to the use of any force, if feasible. The defense’s expert on police dogs testified that Terrell acted in accordance with his training by warning Hooper several times that if she didn’t let go of his gun, he would release his dog. Thus, defense counsel argued that Terrell’s deployment of the dog was reasonable under the circumstances and did not constitute excessive force., Hooper sustained deep avulsions to her scalp and neck, and several fractured toes on her left foot. She was subsequently taken to an emergency room, where surgeons grafted skin from Hooper’s thigh onto her skull to close the wound. Hooper then wore a protective boot on her foot until her toe fractures healed. Hooper claimed she has disfiguring scars where her scalp was torn away. She claimed that as a result, she has permanently lost all of her hair over large areas of her head. Thus, Hooper sought recovery of damages for her past and future medical expenses, and past and future pain and suffering. Plaintiff’s counsel suggested that the jury award Hooper $800,000 in compensatory damages and $75,000 in punitive damages. Defense counsel argued that the defendants were not liable for any alleged damages because Hooper was responsible for her own .