In Ochoa v. City of Mesa, published February 28, 2022, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendant police officers and their agencies. Two 911 calls about decedent within eight minutes of each other indicated decedent was under the influence of drugs, had been in a fight with his ex-girlfriend in which a handgun was involved, and had entered a 911 caller's house without permission armed with two knives and left in a car. The decedent refused to pull over when followed by a marked police car. The decedent fled to a nearby home. A frantic man on the second floor shouted to officers that the decedent was there and was not supposed to be; and that the man was locked with children with him in a bedroom. As police converged, the man brought several children onto the roof to evacuate them. The decedent appeared at a window looking upset and possibly holding a knife. He ignored orders to exit. The officers kicked open the front door. They saw the decedent enter the back yard. Standing between the decedent and the home, the officers formed an L-shape around him. The decedent held two knives in one hand and refused to obey the officers' commands to drop the knife. Officers fired a beanbag round at the decedent and unleashed a police dog at him. He took a large step sideways and, per plaintiffs, away from the officers. The officers fired 30 shots at decedent. He fell with one hand tucked near his waistline. He died at the scene. Two knives were recovered at the scene. Bodycam video shows 16 seconds elapsed between the officers' entry into the home and the shooting. The decedent's family sued the officers and agencies under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, alleging that the officers violated the 14th Amendment by depriving the family of the decedent's companionship and family association. The decedent's estate did not assert any claims. The district court granted summary judgment on the ground that the family's 14th Amendment rights were not violated.
The 9th Circuit held that the district court had applied the correct analysis. Since the decedent's 4th Amendment rights were personal, the family could not assert them. They instead asserted family liberty interests under the 14th amendment due process clause. A claim asserting the police officers violated the 14th amendment during a police shooting must show that the officers' conduct "shocks the conscience." Two tests are used to determine whether officers' conduct shocks the conscience. Which test is used depends on whether the officers had time to deliberate their conduct before using force. If the situation at issue escalated so quickly that the officer had to make a snap judgment, a more demanding showing must be made: That the officers acted with a purpose to harm the decedent for reasons unrelated to legitimate law enforcement objectives. Here, the undisputed factsindicated that the officers did not have time to deliberate before shooting the decedent, and acted for the legitimate law enforcement purpose--protecting themselves, the people in the home, and the public at large. Nothing in the record suggests that the officers had an improper purpose to harm. Although the plaintiffs alleged the officers continued to shoot decedent while he was on the ground, and laughed and cheered when the police dog dragged the decedent so that they could see his hand, there was no direct evidence supporting these allegations. Further, the officers had legitimate law enforcement purposes for the continued firing, due to concern the decedent still had knives in his waistband that he was reaching for. The alleged cheering and laughing took place after the officers had fired at the decedent.
Comments