Qualified Immunity granted on Fourteenth Amendment claim because no analogous case existed at time of incident that “shocks the conscience” in using body weight as a use of force on a mentally ill individual who was not suspected of a crime
Scott v. Smith discusses the right to familial association and whether qualified immunity applies in a Fourteenth Amendment claim brought by the daughter of the decedent. This case also reminds us of the analysis in a Fourth Amendment excessive force cases where the individual suffers from mental illness. (Scott v. Smith, 109 F.4th 1215 (9th Cir. 2024).)
Early in the morning of March 3, 2019, Roy Scott called 911 and reported multiple assailants outside his apartment with a saw. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Officers Smith and Huntsman were assigned to the call. Dispatch notified the officers that Scott was mentally ill. Upon arrival to the scene, Scott was in distress and hallucinating. Officers Smith and Huntsman knocked on the door several times and announced themselves, but Scott refused to open the door. After several attempts to get Scott to open the door, Officer Smith called the Sergeant to ask for advice and suggested they try again to get Scott to open the door. After about seven minutes, Scott opened the door and allowed the officers inside his apartment. Upon entry, Scott went downstairs and had a metal pipe in his hands. Scott immediately dropped it when the officers asked him to do so. The officers asked Scott if he had any other weapons and he said he had a knife in his pocket. He produced it and handed it to Huntsman and did not make any threatening gestures. Scott told the officers he had paranoid schizophrenia and asked to be put in the police car. Scott explained he thought people were after him and was paranoid. The officers recognized that Scott was in distress and met the qualifications for a medical hold for his mental health and safety.
The officers approached Scott and grabbed his arms and pulled him to the ground while he was pleading in a distressed voice. Scott was initially held with his back to the ground and then flipped over onto his stomach with his hands restrained. Huntsman put his body weight on Scott’s back and neck for about one to two minutes. Smith also put his weight on Scott’s legs, restraining his lower body. Scott pleaded and then became incoherent and breathless as the officer’s body weight strained him. After handcuffing him, the officers turned Scott to his side and he continued to cry incoherently that he wanted to be left alone. When the officers rolled Scott onto his back, he did not respond and the officers tried to revive him. The paramedics arrived and tried to revive him, and he was pronounced dead. Scott died from asphyxia.
Rochelle Scott, Scott’s daughter along with the other co-administrator of Scott’s estate, sued Officers Smith and Huntsman, and the Department for violations of Scott’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force and Rochelle Scott’s right to familial association, under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing in part that no constitutional violation occurred and that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court granted defendant’s motion and plaintiffs appealed.
As for the Fourteenth Amendment claim brought by Scott’s daughter, the Court found the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The Court explained that parents and children have a substantive due process right to a familial relationship free from unwarranted state interference. To show a violation of this right, the plaintiff must establish that an officer’s conduct “shocks the conscience.” Two tests govern whether an officer’s conduct “shocks the conscience”: (1) the ‘deliberate indifference test’ or (2) the ‘purpose to harm test.’ The deliberate indifference test applies when the situation involves time for the officer to deliberate before acting. The more demanding ‘purpose to harm’ test applies when the situation escalates quickly and the officer must make a snap judgment. This case turned on whether deliberation by the officers was “practical” and the Court found the officers had time to deliberate and consider their next steps before acting and therefore violated Rochelle Scott’s Fourteenth Amendment right.
Although a constitutional violation was found, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because no analogous case existed at the time of the incident. No authority could be found that would have put the officers on notice that their conduct of using of body weight on a mentally ill person who was not a suspect would “shock the conscience” and a violation of the right to familial association under the Fourteenth Amendment.
s to the Fourth Amendment claim, the Court discussed and reiterated the analysis that governs qualified immunity: (1) did the officers violate a constitutional right; and (2) if a constitutional right was violated, was it a clearly established right. In balancing the interests of the forced used against the need for such force, the Court found the officers were not justified in using deadly force because Scott was mentally ill, was not suspected of a crime and presented little to no danger to the officers. The Court determined that a reasonable jury could find the officers’ use of deadly force was constitutionally excessive. In determining whether qualified immunity applied, precedent established that the use of body weight compression on a prone individual can cause compression asphyxia. (Drummond v. City of Anaheim, 343 F.3d 1052, 1059 (9th Cir. 2003).) The Court commented that the factual similarities were “striking” and found that any reasonable officer should have known that bodyweight force on the back of a prone, unarmed person who is not suspected of a crime and suffering from mental illness, is constitutionally excessive. Officers Smith and Huntsman were not entitled to qualified immunity for plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim.
The Court affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to the officers as to the Fourth Amendment claim and reversed the court’s ruling as to the Fourteenth Amendment claims and remanded for further proceedings.
Link: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/07/30/23-15480.pdf
This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions. It is intended to provide general information about legal developments and is not legal advice. If you have questions about the contents of this alert, please contact Dana K. Oium.