SKIP TO CONTENT
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.

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 instructional style is engaging and your tag-team style is highly effective.

    —George Laing, Fire Prevention Captain, Investigator
  • Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to attend the Interview and Interrogation training presented by Paul Francois and Enrique Garcia.

    —Todd Almason, Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office
  • Your class 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
  • 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
  • ...Provides 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
  • You two are an effective teaching team, and your presentation of the material was consistently interesting, and intelligent without being too intellectualized.

    —Michele Keller, Deputy Probation Officer, County of Alameda
  • Your class 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
  • The information that they have presented is highly relevant to my job, and was presented in a manner that was highly organized and very easy to digest.

    —Michael McGarvey, California State Prison, San Quentin
  • 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
  • This was, by far, one of the most useful classes I've attended since becoming an investigator.

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department