In Andrews v. City of Henderson, published May 23, 2022, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's denial of summary judgment to two police detectives. The plaintiff was a suspected getaway driver in a series of armed robberies of businesses. The detectives followed the plaintiff and another suspect in the robberies to a courthouse. One detective followed them into the courthouse, where the plaintiff and the other suspect passed through a metal detector and an x-ray scanner. The other detective waited outside the courthouse to arrest the plaintiff, because they knew he would be unarmed since he passed through the metal detector. When the plaintiff and other suspect emerged, the detectives walked slowly toward them without identifying themselves. When a detective was a foot away from the plaintiff, he lunged and tackled him to the ground. The other detective landed on top of them as they fell. The takedown fractured the plaintiff's hip, requiring two surgeries. The plaintiff sued the detectives and the city under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for use of excessive force. The district court denied the officers' summary judgment motion, finding an issue of fact on whether they used excessive force. It granted in part and denied in part the City's motion for summary judgment. The officers appealed the denial of their summary judgment to the extent it was based on qualified immunity.
The 9th Circuit applied the two prongs of qualified immunity. On the first prong, the court ruled the district court properly denied summary judgment on whether the officers violated the 4th Amendment in their use of force. The officers used a substantial amount of force, which had to be justified by the need for the specific level of force. The governmental interest in using substantial force was minimal. Despite the violent crime of which he was suspected, at the time the force was used the plaintiff posed no immediate threat, as he was unarmed (which the detectives knew), was not engaged in criminal conduct, was not exhibiting aggressive behavior, and was not resisting arrest or attempting to flee. Further, the officers gave no warning, and presented no evidence that tackling the plaintiff was the only option available to them. The court then analyzed the second prong, and determined whether the plaintiff's constitutional right to be free of the force was clearly established in light of the specific context of the case. Based on 9th Circuit case law barring tackling suspects of minor crimes who did not pose an immediate threat, combined with case law barring use of substantial force against even armed suspects who posed no threat, the law clearly established that the use of substantial force under the circumstances would violate the plaintiff's 4th Amendment rights. Even though the plaintiff was suspected of a major, violent crime, the deciding factor is that the suspect posed no immediate threat to the officers and the public. The court declined to exercise its discretion to review the summary judgment ruling concerning the city.
Comments