In Monzon v. City of Murrieta, published July 22, 2020, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant city and its police officers in a use-of-force case brought under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and state law. The decedent stole a van and led officers on a high-speed chase along residential streets. He stopped at the end of a street. The pursuing officers parked their vehicles in a staggered manner and approached the van on foot. The van made a multi-point turn (striking a fence pole) and drove toward the officers. According to a passenger in the van, the decedent raised his hands as if in surrender. But the undisputed facts established that the decedent continued driving forward as he did so. One of the officers fired at the van. The van drove toward a gap between two of the police vehicles, in the process driving toward two officers. The van struck one of the police vehicles, with such force that a nearby officer's arm went through a window of the police vehicle. The van eventually stopped and began rolling backwards, which an officer stopped by jamming a skateboard under the wheel. From the time the van began turning to the van's stop, only a few seconds passed. During that time, the van accelerated to over 17 miles per hour. A police K9 entered the van and bit the decedent. The officers called the dog off and attended to the decedent. An ambulance arrived within five minutes. The decedent's parents sued the city and officers, alleging excessive use of force, denial of medical care, and, under California law, negligent use of force, battery, and violation of the Bane Act. The district court ruled that the officers' use of force was reasonable, and that they did not deny the decedent medical care.
The 9th Circuit agreed. Under the fast-paced, dynamic circumstances facing the officers--including the high-speed chase, the driver's failure to obey orders to stop, the van turning toward the officers, and the decedent driving toward the officers--the officers' use of force to protect themselves and their fellow officers was objectively reasonable. The court ruled that the circumstances had to be taken together, and not piecemeal. Even if the use of force had not been objectively reasonable, the officers would have been entitled to qualified immunity under the second prong of the immunity. No Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit law established beyond debate that the officers' actions violated the Fourth Amendment. Instead, the most analogous Ninth Circuit case supported the use of force. The use of the police K9 was also reasonable under the circumstances, given the decedent's dangerous actions and the possibility that he was still conscious when the van stopped. The denial of medical care claim failed, because the officers promptly summoned aid for the decedent. The state law claims failed, because even under the expanded standard for use of care under California negligence law the use of force was reasonable.
Pollak, Vida & Barer (along with Ferguson, Praet & Sherman) represented the City and officers on appeal.
Comments