Bloomberg Law’s combination of innovative analytics, research tools and practical guidance provides you with everything you need to be a successful litigator.
Los Angeles County police officers could be personally liable for $4 million awarded to a homeless couple they shot in a shack they called home, after oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court March 22 ( Los Angeles Cty. v. Mendez , U.S., No. 16-369 , argued 3/22/17 ).
The couple survived the shooting, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the award. It based its decision on a legal theory called the provocation rule, which typically opens up police to personal financial responsibility when they engage in unconstitutional conduct eliciting a violent reaction from the victim.
Here, the failure to obtain a search warrant was sufficient provocation to open them up to liability because it violated the constitutional rights of the homeless couple living in the shack, the Ninth Circuit held. This stance made the it an outlier among the federal circuits.
Both parties agreed that the police officers acted reasonably because they shot the couple after entering and seeing a firearm—later proved to be a BB gun—pointed at them.
But the parties disagree on where the analysis for liability begins. The county wants justices to analyze the officers’ conduct from the moment they opened the door, while the couple argues the analysis begins when police decided to forego a search warrant. If the court looks at the entire timeline from the failure to obtain a search warrant, the couple will likely win.
Officers shouldn’t have to consider the risk of personal liability in a moment when they think: “This is where I’m going to die,” said attorney E. Joshua Rosenkranz, arguing for the county.
“That’s a very moving statement,” Justice Justice Sonia Sotomayor interrupted. “We’re not asking them to make that choice. But the issue is who is going to take that loss. When does the police officer have to pay that loss to the victim who is suffering?”
Sotomayor’s background as a criminal trial court judge became immediately apparent when she followed up with a series of questions analyzing various circumstances in which police are justified in making entries without warrants and use deadly force.
Her questions were supplemented by Justice Elena Kagan, who pressed the county to explain how it could question that officers caused the violent reaction because of their failure to get a warrant.
But Rosenkranz argued the warrant wouldn’t have changed officers’ conduct, so it couldn’t have triggered use of the provocation rule.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. pressed the victims’ attorney about whether a civil rule that treats police as trespassers applied in the criminal context. Typically, homeowners are protected in actions taken against trespassers, rather than guests they invite into their homes. If the police are treated as trespassers, it would undermine their shooting of the victims.
But Leonard Feldman of Seattle, representing the victims, maintained that his client wasn’t asking for the court to adopt a new test for analyzing officers’ reasonable conduct. Rather, the court should use a totality of the circumstances approach that would take into consideration all the facts regarding the police and victims’ conduct, Feldman said.
Alhough the entry into his clients’ shelter and failure to obtain a search warrant couldn’t alone establish proximate cause, that doesn’t mean that they can’t establish provocation when considered together.
That would merely change “legality of the conduct, but you can’t change the conduct,” Feldman said. Regardless whether the officers’ individual actions are found to be constitutional, the court need not be totally blind to the conduct when weighing whether police should be held liable for injuries resulting from that conduct, he argued.
That’s why the facts should be analyzed “holistically” rather than fragmented, he added.
To contact the reporter on this story: Jessica DaSilva in Washington at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: C. Reilly Larson at firstname.lastname@example.org
Full text at http://src.bna.com/nfE.
Copyright © 2017 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)