Excessive Force

Officers applied bodyweight prone restraint which killed mentally ill man who had called police for assistance; department general orders required officers responding to a crisis intervention training situation or “excited delirium” to place the subject upright or on their side after bringing them under control; officer held decedent in prone restraint with his knee pressing on his back for fourteen minutes; court reverses district court’s summary judgment for officers, finding factual disputes about reasonableness of force and whether the force constituted deadly force, noting that taking

Jury could find that when officer entered holding cell and struck prisoner who had been complaining about his arrest, that prisoner’s arrest had been effected, he was fully secured, not moving, resisting, or posing any threat, not attempting to flee, and there was no need to use force against him, hence force would be excessive and officer would not be entitled to qualified immunity.

Officer responding to domestic violence call entitled to qualified immunity on excessive force claim, where officer put his knee on plaintiff’s back as he lay on the ground for no more than 8 seconds and only on the side of his back near a knife in his pocket that officers were in the process of retrieving; Court distinguishes Lalonde v. Co. of Riverside, 204 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2000), where officer deliberately dug his knee into suspect’s back when he had no weapon and had made no threats, causing long-term, if not permanent back injury.

Reversing summary judgment for officer, holding that jury could find that officer who restrained diabetic face down in prone position for several minutes had applied deadly force to a non-suspect civilian who was not resisting arrest and did not pose an imminent threat to any person or himself; depending upon facts to be found by jury, plaintiff’s rights could be held clearly established.

Plaintiff’s excessive force claim for dog bite was barred by Heck where plaintiff pleaded guilty to resisting arrest, which under California law requires that obstructive acts occurred while officer was engaged in the lawful exercise of his duties, and plaintiff could not separate dog bite from his actions that formed the basis of his conviction.

Action for excessive force was barred by Heck where plaintiff had been convicted of resisting, delaying, or obstructing peace officer and under California law such conviction is valid only when officer was acting lawfully at time that offense against officer was committed and criminal jury was so instructed; court notes that Heck would not bar claim where conviction and § 1983 action are based on different actions taken during one continuous transaction.

Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review Heck issue on interlocutory appeal of qualified immunity; plaintiff’s conviction for refusing to bring vehicle to a stop under circumstances that endanger human life did not bar excessive force claim based on officer’s shooting after plaintiff had stopped and exited his vehicle; factual disputes precluded summary judgment on shooting.

Officer used excessive force against pretrial detainee who had been involved in fight but had stopped fighting and was orderly and compliant, with hands behind his back, when officer struck him; gratuitous force violated clearly established 14th Amendment rights.

Plaintiff alleged police use of cell site simulator (a device that impersonates cell phone towers) to locate him constituted an unconstitutional warrantless search; court remands with detailed instructions to develop record to determine capability of the simulator, nature of data it collects, what police have access to, minimization in use, and policies that prevented seeking a warrant.

Reasonable juror could find that warrantless entry into home was not justified by emergency aid exception; anonymous call does not provide objectively reasonable basis; court rejects series of factual arguments by defendant; fact that person who answered door opened it only slightly and used her knee to prevent police from opening it further did not provide cause to enter: “exercising her Fourth Amendment rights can hardly be ground for police to circumvent the core right protected by the Amendment”; absent exigent circumstances warrantless entry into home violated clearly established law;