In S.B. v. County of San Diego, published May 12, 2017, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court's denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Sheriff's deputies received a call that the decedent's family members were concerned about their safety because the decedent, who had mental issues, was intoxicated and acting aggressively. The deputies entered the decedent's house with a gun and a taser drawn. They encountered the decedent in his kitchen, his pockets full of knives. After several orders, the decedent raised his hands and dropped to his knees. The decedent then drew a knife quickly, and the defendant deputy fatally shot the decedent. The three deputies involved gave inconsistent accounts of whether a deputy was trying to handcuff the decedent when the decedent drew the knife, and the distance between the decedent and the deputies when the knife was drawn. The district court denied the defendant deputy's motion for summary judgment, on the ground that the different versions created triable issues of fact that defeated both the argument that the use of force was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and California state law, and that the deputy was entitled to qualified immunity under federal law. The deputy filed an interlocutory appeal.
The 9th Circuit agreed that the issues of fact prevented summary judgment on whether the use of force was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, a reasonable juror could find that the use of force was unreasonable, due to the decedent's distance from the deputies, that the shooting deputies could not see the other deputies' proximity to the decedent when he shot, that the deputies did not warn the decedent to drop the knife, and that the deputies could have used less-lethal force by tasing the decedent. But the court then ruled that the issues of fact did not defeat qualified immunity. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that an officer is entitled to qualified immunity for a violation of the Fourth Amendment unless case law existing at the time of the violation established beyond question that the officer's actions violated the Fourth Amendment. No case law at the time of the decedent's death established under the circumstances present that the deputy's use of lethal force would violate the Fourth Amendment. The deputy was therefore entitled to summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment cause of action. In a footnote, the court declined to address the cause of action for wrongful death under California law. But it held that its conclusion that deadly force was not objectively reasonable as a matter of law supported the district court's denial of summary judgment on that claim.
Leave a Reply