In Emmons v. City of Escondido, published April 25, 2019, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant police officers in a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 case. Officers were asked to conduct a welfare check on a woman and two children. The month before, the woman's husband had been accused of domestic violence. When the officers arrived at the apartment house where the woman lived, the woman's roommate and children were outside the apartment. The roommate told the officers everything was fihe and that they were not needed. The officers proceeded to the apartment. The woman and her father were inside. The woman refused to allow the officers to enter. The father emerged from the apartment. According to the father, he stepped out of the apartment with his back to the exterior hallway and began to close the door. The officers' bodycams recorded one of the officers telling the man not to close the door, to put his hands behind his back, and to get on the ground. As the officer said this, he grabbed the father and threw or tackled him to the ground. The 9th Circuit initially ruled that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity as to the use of force. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, reversed as to one officer, and vacated and remanded as to the officer who performed the takedown.
On remand, the 9th Circuit concluded the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. The law did not clearly establish that stopping and taking down a man under the circumstances here was excessive force. Case law establishing the right to be free from use of force in response to mere passive resistance was not directly on point; otherwise the Supreme Court would not have vacated the denial of summary judgment. No case was so precisely on point as to clearly establish the use of force was unconstitutional.