In Longoria v. Pinal County, published October 10, 2017, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court's grant of summary judgment to a police officer who shot an unarmed suspect in the back. The decedent led police officers on a chase while acting erratically. His car was stopped by a PIT maneuver. Officers repeatedly observed him during the chase and announced that he did not have a gun. After the decedent got out of the car, he did not comply with orders to show his hands. The supervising officer ordered use of less-lethal weapons. Officers shot decedent with beanbag rounds and a taser dart. The decedent turned toward his car--away from the defendant officer--and raised his empty hands over his head. The defendant officer then fired two rounds into the decedent's back from 25 to 45 feet away. The officer testified that he saw the decedent assume a shooter's stance. No other officer present saw such a stance. There was video of the incident. The district court, relying on a frozen frame of the video, agreed that a reasonable officer could have perceived a shooter's stance, and granted the defendant officer summary judgment based on qualified immunity.
The 9th Circuit held that the district court erred, because the evidence and circumstances raised genuine issues of fact on whether the decedent assumed a shooter's stance, and the district court improperly resolved those disputes in the officer's favor rather than the decedent's. The district court should not have relied on a frozen frame of the video, where the officers would have perceived events in real time and the videos, shot in real time, did not establish that the defendant officer was correct or credible. If the officer shot an unarmed suspect who posed no immediate threat, it was clearly established that the shooting would violate the Fourth Amendment. The officer was therefore not entitled to qualified immunity.
Comments