Unanimous Court rules for cops in shooting case
A unanimous Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned a Ninth Circuit rule that held police officers liable for using excessive force under the Fourth Amendment even though the same act would qualify for immunity on other grounds.
In Los Angeles County v. Mendez, Justice Samuel Alito, writing in the 8-0 decision, said that “the Fourth Amendment provides no basis for the Ninth Circuit’s ‘provocation rule.’”
In general, police have legal immunity for their actions in the line of duty, unless they violate someone’s clearly established constitutional rights. Over the years, courts have taken differing approaches on when such rights have been spelled out clearly. Police shootings in recent years have been involved more often in such cases.
Link: Read The Decision
The Ninth Circuit’s decision in the Mendez case upheld taking away the legal immunity of police officers for shooting two homeless people in a shed they occupied because a district court believed the officers’ actions provoked a violent response. One of the individuals who was shot and wounded raised a BB gun and pointed it at officers after they had broken into the shed without a search warrant.
The two men sued the police officers citing three constitutional violations: a warrantless entry claim, a knock-and-announce claim, and an excessive force claim. The district court issued nominal awards on the first two claims. But it said the officers had lost their immunity on the excessive force claim even though the deputies’ use of force was reasonable under one standard. Instead, the Ninth Circuit’s provocation rule, which makes an officer’s otherwise reasonable use of force unreasonable if the officer “intentionally or recklessly provokes a violent confrontation,” took precedence. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit upheld the application of its own rule in the Mendez case.
“We hold that the Fourth Amendment provides no basis for such a rule. A different Fourth Amendment violation cannot transform a later, reasonable use of force into an unreasonable seizure,” Alito said.
“The provocation rule may be motivated by the notion that it is important to hold law enforcement officers liable for the foreseeable consequences of all of their constitutional torts,” said Alito. “However, there is no need to distort the excessive force inquiry in order to accomplish this objective.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch did not take part in the decision since arguments were heard before his confirmation to the Court.