the investigatory stop. The collision did not give rise to any viable Fourth Amendment claims. See County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 843-844, 118 S.Ct. 1708, 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998) (“no Fourth Amendment seizure would take place where a pursuing police car sought to stop the suspect only by the show of authority represented by flashing lights and continuing pursuit, but accidentally stopped the suspect by crashing into him”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, neither Officer Glasgo’s nor Officer Bertini’s detention of Schneider, Basques, and Farley constituted an arrest. See United States v. Butler, 249 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The case books are full of scenarios in which a person is detained by law enforcement officers, 769, 1776, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs cannot allege colorable Fifth
holding that where the meaning of the jurys verdict was not clear in light of the trial courts jury instructions the court of appeals erred in directing entry of judgment for respondent the case should have been remanded to the trial judge who was in the best position to pass upon the question of a new trial in light of the evidence his charge to the jury and the jurys verdict holding that the court of appeals should not have relied on   visible fiction it should have viewed the facts in the light depicted by the videotape holding that the trial court should have dismissed the employees breach of contract claim holding that appellate court should have viewed facts of highspeed police chase in the light depicted by a videotape of the events holding that the factual components of a case should be viewed together