We use both our own and third-party cookies for statistical purposes and to improve our services. If you continue to browse, we consider that you accept the use of these.
  • Celebrating 20 Years of Training Excellence 2004-2024

The Fourth Amendment and “Excessive” Force

If you are the unfortunate focus of a lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S. C. 1983 you know that it can be a trying, stressful event. Especially in the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit promulgated the “provocation rule” which allowed officers to be found liable EVEN when they used constitutionally reasonable force if 1. The officer “intentionally or recklessly provokes a violent confrontation” and 2. The provocation is an independent Fourth Amendment violation. What that exactly meant for officers was hard to discern. The United States Supreme Court just gave some guidance in County of Los Angeles v. Mendez, 2017 DJDAR 4912.

A CI notified LA County Sheriff’s Deputies that an armed and dangerous parolee at large had been seen at a residence. The deputies went to the residence. A resident refused to allow the deputies to enter unless they had a warrant. They did not. The front door was open and they saw an individual inside the house so they entered. Some officers went to the back of the house. They went to a structure that had an air conditioner and a blue blanket over the entrance. Mendez and his wife were napping in the shack. Without a search warrant, without knocking and announcing, the deputies opened the door to the shack. Mendez raised a BB gun toward the officers. One of the deputies yelled “Gun!” and the officers shot Mendez and his wife. Mendez lost his leg. The parolee was not found.

Mendez sued the deputies for Fourth Amendment violations: warrantless entry, no knock notice, and excessive force. On the first two claims the District Court awarded nominal damages. On the excessive force claim the court found the deputies use of force was reasonable under Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, but held them liable under the Ninth Circuit’s provocation rule. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the knock notice claim and that the warrantless entry violated clearly established law. It affirmed the provocation finding.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed. The court held the proper analysis is found in Graham. The test that will be used going forward in excessive force claims is whether the totality of the circumstances justifies a particular sort of search or seizure. What that means for officers is this, if you are sued for a violation of civil rights, the court will analyze whether you committed a Fourth Amendment violation that led to any injuries. The Ninth Circuit’s analysis no longer applies. Good news for you. Bottom line: if you scrupulously comply with your Fourth Amendment obligations and someone gets hurt when you use reasonable force you should have qualified immunity from a lawsuit. Let me repeat what I always urge, when in doubt, take the extra time (protect yourself) and get a warrant!



  • Your training has made the greatest and most direct impact on my assignment of any training class that I've taken.

    —Ken Gelskey, National City Police Department
  • This was, by far, one of the most useful training classes I've attended since becoming an investigator.

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department
  • Your training gave me the confidence and tools to interview the suspect for over 5 hours and to bring a closure to the case.

    —Daniel Phelan, San Jose Police Department
  • Effective teaching teams! The presentation of the material was consistently interesting, and intelligent without being too intellectualized.

    —Michele Keller, Deputy Probation Officer, County of Alameda
  • This training by far has been the most informative and most effective I've attended. The instructors engaged the students in a manner that made me want to speak my opinion, ask questions, and participate.

    —Julio Ibarra, Merced County Sheriff’s Office
  • This training provided the useful tools necessary for assessing the veracity of a suspected child abuser, which goes a long way in helping to protect children.

    —Sunny Burgan, MSSW, LCSW, Social Work Supervisor, Santa Clara County DFCS
  • It not often that you go to a training that you really, really want to pay attention to. Because of the high quality information and style of presentation, I knew that if I looked away I was going to miss out.

    —Quinten Graves, Oregon State Police
  • This was, by far and away the best training I have received in 15 plus years of Law Enforcement. The instructors are experienced, engaging, articulate, and very entertaining. I will be recommending this training to multiple agencies.

    —Mark Paynter, Oregon DOC
  • The information presented was highly relevant to my job and was presented in a manner that was organized and very easy to digest.

    —Michael McGarvey, California State Prison, San Quentin
  • I highly recommend this training for any Probation staff who have the necessity to interview/interrogate individuals for investigation purposes.

    —R. Bret Fidler, Santa Clara County Probation Department
  • Instructional style is engaging and highly effective.

    —George Laing, Fire Prevention Captain, Investigator
  • I will continue to use and pass on this information because I really believe in the instructors and their approach.

    —Kimberly Meyer, Washoe County Sheriff's Department
  • Incredible training with amazing real world instruction. I have been taking law enforcement classes for over 30 years and by far this is the best presented and most useful.

    —Det. Brian Dale, Portland Police Bureau