In Napouk v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, published December 10, 2024, a divided panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the defendants. Officers received calls of a man with a "slim jim," "long stick," or "machete" acting suspiciously. When the defendant officers arrived in the neighborhood, the plaintiffs' decedent came out from between two houses. He was wearing sunglasses and had headphones in both ears. He was carrying a long object that the officers thought was a machete. The officers drew their weapons and ordered the man to drop the object in his hands. They also ordered him to remove the headphones. For five minutes, as the man walked slowly around one of the patrol cars, the object in various positions, the officers told the man to drop the sword and warned that they would have to shoot him if he did not. He would occasionally answer threats to shoot him with, "You have to" and, "I know." Eventually, when the man came within nine feet of the officers and they became concerned about crossfire, the officers both shot him multiple times, killing him. The object he was holding was a homemade plastic toy sword. The man's parents sued the officers for violation of the decedent's 4th Amendment rights and their own 14th amendment rights, and asserted a Monell claim against the city.
The majority held that the officers did not violate the 4th Amendment. The officers reasonably mistook the object in the man's hands for a real machete. As such, he posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers. He was walking toward one of the officers, failing to follow commands to stop or drop the weapon for five minutes, caused them to retreat with increasing frequency, and came within 10 feet of them. That he was walking slowly at times did not change that he was deliberately advancing on them with what appeared to be a long bladed weapon. The officers attempted to deescalate the situation and engage with the suspect. They also attempted to retreat. By approaching the officers with an apparent weapon, the suspect committed a serious crime. By refusing the officers' instructions, the decedent was actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest. SInce the decedent was brandishing what appeared to be a lethal weapon and advancing toward the officers, that he was apparently emotionally disturbed did not negate the threat he exhibited. If anything, his erratic behavior made him more of a threat. They also gave effective warnings. The majority also ruled the officers did not violate clearly-established law. The majority further rejected the parents' 14th Amendment claim for deprivation of a family relationship. Since the situation did not provide time for deliberation, only an act with a purpose to harm unrelated to any legitimate law enforcement objectives would violate the 14th Amendment. Assuming plaintiffs could assert a substantive due process claim based on the death of their 44-year-old son, and could make out an excessive force claim, there is no evidence the officers acted with anything other than legitimate law enforcement objectives of defense of themselves and each other. FInally, because the officers did not violate the Constitution, the Monell claim fails.
One concurring judge opined that the parents should not have a 14th Amendment claim for the death of their adult son. A dissenting judge opined that a jury should conclude whether the officers used excessive force under the circumstances.