In Puente v. City of Phoenix, published December 19, 2024, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part a summary judgment order in a lawsuit brought against police officers, supervisors, and the defendant city. Then-President Trump held a rally at a city convention center. Before the event, the police designated a free-speech zone for protest and a public-safety zone. The police met with various protest organizers to make arrangements for the event. The police erected a pedestrian fence between the zones, and had nearly 1000 public safety personnel present. At the event, the crowd began growing violent. Members thew water bottles, brought protest signs on long poles, passed out items to the crowd, shoved other persons, and appeared to prepare to breach the fences. When persons who appeared to be Antifa members began pushing at the fence, officers fired pepper balls in front of them. When members continued shaking the fence, officers fired pepper balls at them. As the motorcade left the venue, crowd members began throwing rocks, water bottles, a device emitting a gas, and a pyrotechnical device. Officers fired tear gas, flash-bang grenades, and pepper balls. The officers declared an unlawful assembly, cleared the protesters by marching toward them, and used more non-lethal weapons on them. The police chief praised the officers after the event for their professionalism. After the event, officers circulated a mocking challenge coin depicting a protester receiving a groin injury. Organizations and individuals sued officers involved, their supervisors, and the city under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The district court granted summary judgment on all claims except the 4th Amendment Excessive Force claims against officers who struck plaintiffs with projectiles.
The 9th Circuit held that summary judgment should have been granted as to all of the plaintiffs' claims. The court held that there was no seizure as to plaintiffs who were subject to airborn irritants, and that the use of force as to those defendants was therefore governed by the 14th Amendment "shocks the conscience" standard rather than the 4th Amendment. Because the actions at the time were all related to legitimate law enforcement interests, rather than a purpose to harm, the actions did not violate the 14th Amendment. The post-event issuance of the "challenge coin" was of minimal relevance because it occurred after the event. The analysis does not apply to the plaintiffs who were actually struck by projectiles. The court declined to determine whether they suffered a temporary seizure that would invoke the 4th Amendment, because under the circumstances the officers who used the projectiles were entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct was reasonable under the circumstances or did not violate clearly-established law. Cases finding violations were materially distinguishable from the events here, and therefore did not clearly establish the law. The 9th Circuit rejected the argument that the plaintiffs' 1st Amendment rights were violated because the officers did not issue verbal warnings to the crowd before using force. The supervising officers were entitled to summary judgment, because where subordinates do not violate clearly-established law, there is no supervisory liability claim. Finally, the plaintiffs failed to state a Monell claim against the city.
Comments