In Rice v. Morehouse, published March 8, 2021, the 9th Circuit reversed partial summary judgment granted to police officer defendants in a police use of force case. An officer made a traffic stop of plaintiff for changing lanes without signaling for five seconds first. The plaintiff showed the officer his license on command, but refused to show registration and proof of insurance. The officer called in a "Code 3 assist," which is the most urgent request for backup officers. The plaintiff refused the officer's orders to exit the car. The officer called in an update downgrading the backup assist. The arriving officers were not on the frequency and did not receive that call. Officers including the defendants arrived. The initial officer told the backup officers that the plaintiff was not complying with her instructions, she she just needed somebody to help her get the plaintiff out of the car. The plaintiff continued to refuse to exit the car, but did roll down his window and unlock the car. The defendant officers pulled the plaintiff out of the car. The plaintiff asserts he did not resist. After they removed the plaintiff, the defendant officers attempted to hold the plaintiff in a "police lead" position, gripping both his arms, tripping him, and throwing him to the ground face-first as a "takedown" maneuver. Officers repeatedly struck and kneed the plaintiff on the ground. The district court granted the defendant officers who participated in the takedown summary judgment for the takedown, based on qualified immunity. The rest of the case against the defendant officers for the scrum after the takedown proceeded to trial, at which the defendants prevailed. The plaintiff appealed.
The 9th Circuit first ruled that the plaintiff's appeal from the final judgment would be interpreted to permit appeal from the partial summary judgment in favor of the officer defendants, particularly given the centrality of the issue in the district court and the appellate briefs. The court determined that, resolving material issues of fact in the plaintiff's favor, a reasonable jury could find that the officers used unreasonable force. The plaintiff's passive resistance did not present an emergency, the purported traffic offense was minor, a jury could find that the officers could not have reasonably believed the plaintiff had committed a serious crime and that he did not present an immediate threat to the officers or others, and that the plaintiff was not actively resisting arrest but rather passively resisting arrest. The officers also failed to consider what other tactics, if any, were available. Officer failure to consider clear, reasonable, and less intrusive alternatives to the force used militates against finding the use of force reasonable. The law clearly established that use of substantial force against a passively resisting person violated the Fourth Amendment. The officers therefore were not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.
Comments