Judge Rejects Temecula’s Bid to Brake Chases by INS : Ruling: Despite 6-death crash June 2, jurist denies city’s view that she has jurisdiction and agrees that the city cannot sue the federal government on the issue.

A federal judge Thursday rejected out of hand a lawsuit filed by Temecula city officials aimed at forcing the U.S. Border Patrol to rewrite its policy on high-speed pursuits in reaction to a crash 2 1/2 weeks ago that left six people dead.

U.S. District Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler said here that Temecula’s attorneys had failed to convince her that she has jurisdiction over the matter, and she agreed with the U.S. attorney’s office that the federal government cannot be sued by the municipality on the issue.

Stotler had been expected Thursday to rule only on Temecula’s request for a temporary restraining order that would have barred the Border Patrol from conducting such chases within the city limits until the larger issue was litigated on whether the Border Patrol should rewrite its pursuit policy.

Instead, Stotler ruled on both issues at the same time, coming down on the side of the federal government by saying that Temecula’s original lawsuit and the request for the temporary restraining order both lacked merit.

Temecula’s city attorney, Scott Field, said he was surprised and disappointed that Stotler ruled on the larger issue without even holding a hearing or inviting oral arguments from the two sides.

He said the city is considering its options--including refiling the complaint after honing its arguments or appealing Stotler’s ruling.

The city’s lawsuit against the federal Immigration and Naturalization Service was prompted by the June 2 Border Patrol chase of a vehicle containing 12 illegal immigrants. The vehicle had been stolen at Mission Viejo Mall; the chase began in the San Diego border community of San Ysidro.

The pursuit by a marked Border Patrol vehicle began on Interstate 15 at the Border Patrol checkpoint at the San Diego-Riverside County line and quickly spilled onto residential streets of nearby Temecula.

Traveling at speeds estimated at upward of 80 m.p.h., the chased vehicle tore through an intersection next to Temecula Valley High School, sliced in half a car carrying a father, his son and a schoolmate of the son, then struck a brother and sister walking to school on the sidewalk.

The death toll climbed to six after one of the illegal immigrants died of his injuries a week later.

The Border Patrol said it pulled back from the chase before the stolen Chevrolet Suburban entered the intersection near the school, but city officials allege that the agents acted irresponsibly in the first place by pursuing the illegal immigrants into a school zone.

In the lawsuit, filed June 12, the city contended that the agency’s pursuit policy lacks sufficient guidelines to govern individual agents in chases and violates California’s Motor Vehicle Code.

The city argued, for instance, that the Border Patrol should have more clearly defined guidelines on pursuit through residential or school zones and should be required to contact local police when entering the city on such a chase.

In her two-page ruling, Stotler said the city failed to make its case that the Border Patrol’s pursuit policy violates state law--or whether, for that matter, the agency even has to conform to California laws governing such chases.

She said another federal court has already determined that the Border Patrol vehicle pursuit policy conforms with California law.

Besides, she said, the city failed to convince her that Border Patrol chases pose an immediate threat to the city.

Greater public harm may be done, she said, if the Border Patrol enforcement methods were hamstrung by her barring such pursuits through Temecula.

“Only . . . three accidents have been caused by those fleeing from the Border Patrol within the city of Temecula in the past four years,” she said.

Those accidents, the city noted bitterly, resulted in eight deaths and 12 injuries.

The city also failed to establish that the public would be served by curbing the Border Patrol, “since the public will suffer harm if the temporary restraining order (is granted) because the Immigration and Nationality Act will not be enforced effectively.”

Field, the Temecula city attorney, said: “We knew this would not be an easy row to hoe. A city suing the federal government is not something that is done frequently, easily or without careful thought.

“But we felt we had no other alternatives for redress and, unfortunately, the court is saying, ‘No, we won’t provide you redress, either.’

“We’re not satisfied,” Field said. “In all likelihood, we’ll refile the action in the same court, and it will probably go before the same judge. Obviously, there may be some things we can plead differently and more effectively. We’ve got some hints on where some of our weak spots are.”

Field said he hopes that, the court loss notwithstanding, the city and the INS can still resolve the issue of whether the Border Patrol’s pursuit policy is appropriate for urban areas.

“There’s nothing we would like better than to resolve this on a friendly basis,” he said. “We’ve seen their statements that they intend to reform their pursuit policy, and it’s another thing to do it. Now is the time to do it.”

Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for the regional INS office in Laguna Niguel, said the agency is pleased with Stotler’s ruling.

“At the same time, we have great sympathy for the city of Temecula and what its residents have been through,” Kice said.

“The process of reviewing our pursuit policy, which was initiated prior to the accident, is ongoing. Protecting the public and enforcing the law are both priorities for the INS. We will do our best to achieve our mission with a minimum of risk to public safety.”

Kice said John Chase, who heads the internal INS investigations unit and who was sent to Temecula to investigate the tragedy personally on behalf of INS Commissioner Gene McNary, is back in Washington compiling his report. Times staff writer Mark Pinsky in Santa Ana contributed to this story.