9th Circuit

Coerced confession claims cannot be asserted under a fabrication of evidence theory; coercive interrogation exists when officer’s tactics undermine suspect’s ability to exercise free will, rendering statements involuntary; court denies qualified immunity on Fifth Amendment claim that officers continued to question juvenile after he invoked right to silence, requested attorney, and that officers threatened juvenile with harsher penalties if he continued to “lie” and did not confess; juvenile’s statement, “Could I have an attorney?

Court applies previously recognized right to be free of judicial deception and fabrication of evidence in violation of due process rights in civil child custody cases; requires showing that defendant deliberately or recklessly made false statements or omissions that were material to a finding; holds that allegations were sufficient to establish that defendants obtained authorization for children’s medical examinations with reckless disregard for truth with respect to whether parents had been contacted.

Excessive force claim was barred by Heck where plaintiff had been convicted of resisting, delaying, or obstructing peace officer and jury in criminal trial was told that it could convict defendant only if officer was lawfully performing his duties.

Pretrial detainee’s right to proper medical screening was clearly established, nurse could be liable for instituting alcohol withdrawal protocol rather than opiate withdrawal protocol, despite fact decedent told her of his heroin addiction; pretrial detainee had a right to direct-view safety check to determine whether his presentation indicated the need for medical treatment, but right was not clearly established prior to this opinion.

If motorist was at most passively resisting officers by refusing to produce driver’s license, tripping him while holding his arms behind his back constituted excessive force.

Plaintiff fled to his car in his garage to avoid misdemeanor arrest for DUI; not clearly established that police could not use canine where officers used minimal force at beginning of encounter and escalated to canine when other methods were unsuccessful.

Officer followed, then struggled with, then shot and killed emotionally disturbed man; district court dismissed § 1983 claim and negligence claim; plaintiff appealed only negligence claim and court reversed, noting that California negligence law on deadly force was broader than Fourth Amendment and that officer’s pre-shooting conduct could render his behavior unreasonable; jury could find: that officer had reason to be aware that decedent was mentally ill, that officer failed to follow police protocol dealing with mentally ill persons before using force, that officer failed to deescalate th

Following a high speed chase, plaintiffs stopped, then made a three-point turn in a controlled manner and their vehicle was moving slowly forward, not accelerating and not pointed directly at officers; officers who fired upon them “seized” both driver and passenger; court rejects officers’ claim that passenger was not seized because they intended to shoot only driver, because stopping car would have seized passenger; construing facts in favor of plaintiffs, seizure of slowly moving car was unreasonable where officers could have easily stepped out of vehicle’s path to avoid danger; officers

Introducing statement made without Miranda warnings at criminal proceeding violates 5th Amendment and is actionable under § 1983; trial court erred in instructing jury on factors that would constitute a “coerced confession,” rather than instructing on failure to give Miranda warning.

Applying objective standard for failure to provide medical attention to pretrial detainee, under Kingsley and Gordon v. Co. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2018), to review of incident and summary judgment motion decided prior to Gordon.