In Johnson v. Myers, published March 3, 2025, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court decision denying the defendant officers summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Several police officers responded to a call from decedent's girlfriend stating decedent was being abusive. One of the defendant officers spoke with the decedent, built a rapport with him, and defused the situation without an arrest. Almost four weeks later, the girlfriend again called 911, telling the operator that the decedent was threatening to kill both her and himself with a knife. She asked the officers to get him to leave. She said that she was bolting herself in the bathroom and that the decedent was scraping the bathroom door with his fingernails. She said that the decedent had said there was blood everywhere, but did not know if the decedent had actually harmed himself. An inaccurate message was transmitted via radio that the caller was saying there was blood everywhere inside the bathroom. Multiple officers, including the officer who had talked the decedent down before, arrived. When the caller heard the sirens, she asked the dispatcher, "No, please don't shoot." The officers identified themselves, demanded entry, then kicked in the door. The decedent was standing in the hallway of the apartment, hands down at his side. He was holding an open pocketknife. Over the span of five seconds, the officers gave overlapping commands to the decedent to put his hands up, get on the ground, and drop the knife. The decedent took several steps forward, and the officers retreated so that there was approximately 4.5 feet between themselves and the decedent. The decedent raised his right hand, in what could have been complying with the order to put his hands up. It is disputed whether the decedent kept advancing or stopped. Without giving a warning, the officers fatally shot the decedent. When the officers moved for summary judgment, the district court found factual disputes on whether a reasonable officer in the same position would have believed the decedent posed an immediate threat to the officers, and whether the use of less drastic measures was feasible.
The 9th Circuit agreed that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the decedent, the officers were not entitled to statutory immunity. A 9th Circuit case published before the events of the case held that officers' use of force was not indisputably reasonable where officers shot a man holding a pocketknife to his own neck, because the man never brandished or threatened the officers with the knife, he might not be actively resisting arrest, he may not have comprehended the warnings and commands the officers gave, and less lethal measures, such as the use of a taser, were available. Those same factors were present here. The officers gave no warning before shooting, made no attempts to talk to the decedent or otherwise deescalate the situation, and resolving factual disputes for the plaintiffs, the decedent had stopped and was raising his hands when the officers shot him ten times. Those facts would clearly establish a violation of the 4th Amendment.
Leave a Reply