In Scott v. Smith, filed July 30, 2024, the 9th Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Viewing the disputed facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' decedent called 911, complaining of men armed with saws in front of his home. Police responded. After they knocked on the door several times, ordering the decedent to come to the door, the decedent opened the door, carrying a metal pipe. On the officers' command, he dropped the pipe. Asked if he was carrying any other weapons, he produced a knife from his pocket and handed it handle-first to the officers, apologizing. The decedent informed the officers that he was mentally ill and paranoid, and asked to be placed in their car. The officers decided to detain the decedent for a mental health hold. When the officers seized him, he protested and struggled. The officers pinned him, pressing body weight against his neck and back, despite the decedent's protests growing muffled and incoherent. The decedent passed away of restraint asphyxia. His daughter and estate sued for violation of the decedent's 4th Amendment rights by use of excessive force, and the daughter's 14th Amendment right of familial association.
The 9th Circuit ruled that under the plaintiffs' version of the facts, the officers violated the decedent's 4th Amendment rights. The balancing of interests in use of force did not compel use of deadly force against a mentally ill man who was complying with officer orders and who was not suspected of a crime. The use of deadly force also violated clearly-established law, as it was well-established at the time under 9th Circuit authority that use of body weight on a mentally ill person who did not pose a threat was excessive force. The 9th Circuit further determined that because the officers had time to deliberate before using force, and showed deliberate indifference, under the plaintiffs' version of the facts, they violated the daughter's 14th Amendment right to familial relationship. But because there was no case law finding a 14th Amendment violation under similar circumstances at the time, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity to that claim.
Comments