In Hayes v. County of San Diego, published August 19, 2013, the California Supreme Court answered a question certified to it by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concerning negligence in law enforcement's use of deadly force. The case dealt with deputies who came to a home in response to a call from a neighbor who said she had heard screaming. When the deputies arrived, the decedent's girlfriend told them that earlier the decedent had tried to kill himself. The deputies entered to determine whether the decedent was a danger to himself. The deputies encountered the decedent, and asked him to show them his hands. The decedent walked toward the deputies holding a large knife in his raised hand. The deputies drew their guns and shot the decedent, killing him. The supreme court analyzed whether, in light of the lower court cases Adams v. City of Fremont (which held officers owed no duty of care to a person who committed suicide in regard to their efforts to prevent the suicide) and Munoz v. City of Union City (which held that officers owed a duty of care in using deadly force, but not with regard to preliminary conduct and decisions that later gave rise to a dangerous situation in which the use of deadly force was justified).
Since the decedent's death in this case resulted from the police shooting, rather than from the decedent killing himself, the court declined to address whether Adams was decided correctly. But it disapproved Munoz to the extent it held that an officer owes no duty of care regarding pre-shooting conduct that gives rise to use of deadly force. Instead, the court held, where the only injury results from the police use of deadly force, the police conduct is not divided into pre-use and use segments for negligence purposes. The proper analysis is whether the use of force was reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances -- which includes the officers' pre-use tactical conduct and decisions.
The court explained the difference between Fourth Amendment law and California negligence law regarding use of deadly force. Fourth Amendment law tends to focus on the moment when deadly force is used. California law considers the totality of circumstances surrounding any use of deadly force.
The court emphasized that police have a degree of discretion as to how they choose to address a particular situation; it did not want to suggest that a particular preshooting protocol is always required for any particular situation.
Comments