SIL Wins Ninth Circuit Police Brutality Appeal Denying Officer Qualified Immunity
SIL Wins Ninth Circuit Police Brutality Appeal Denying Officer Qualified Immunity
On August 14, 2024, Scottsdale Injury Lawyers won a Ninth Circuit Appeal. Specifically, a Ninth Circuit decision was issued on an appeal of an excessive force case handled by the firm. Lead trial lawyer, C. Tony Piccuta, handled the underlying case as well as the Ninth Circuit appeal. The case arose from the deployment of a Goodyear Police Department K9 on the firm’s client.
The Excessive Force Incident
The case arose from the vicious attack of the firm’s client by a Goodyear Police Department K-9 police dog. On October 20, 2019, no fewer than seven Goodyear police officers, including a K-9 unit, responded to a report of a family dispute involving the client and his parents. Upon arrival, the officers failed to conduct any meaningful investigation to determine whether the client presented a threat of safety to anyone at that time. Had they spoken to the client’s mother, the alleged “victim” and only sober member of the family, they would have learned that the client was unarmed and had not threatened anyone.
The officers failed to do that. Instead, they relied on information conveyed by the client’s father. The father was so intoxicated that he had trouble standing at the scene and did not know what day it was. After deliberating among themselves for 5–10 minutes, the officers decided that the appropriate way to search for and apprehend the client was with a police dog. The client was unarmed and had no criminal history.
After determining the client was likely in the back yard in a shed, at least five officers and the police dog surrounded the shed. Then, without a canine warning or command of any kind, the dog was let into the shed and sicced on the client. The dog’s handler and other officers allowed the dog to bite the client for approximately 40 seconds. The dog’s handler later admitted that he could see that the client had no weapons as soon as the dog was on the bite.
The Police Brutality Lawsuit Filed Against the Dog Handler
Our civil rights lawyers filed the police brutality lawsuit against several police officers who were present. This included the K9 handler and other officers involved in the investigation and use of force. The lawsuit had several claims. Those claims included:
- Violation of Fourth Amendment – Excessive Force – For Decision to Release the Police K9
- Violation of Fourth Amendment – Excessive Force – For Duration the Police K9 Was on the Bite
- Failure to Intervene to Stop the Excessive Force
- Integral Participation in the Use of Excessive Force
The lawsuit alleged that the dog handler used excessive force in two ways. First, when he decided to allow the dog to bite the client in the first instance. This claim was based on the fact that the handler did not give any warnings to the client when he was at the shed and knew the client was inside. It was further based on the fact that the client was not a threat and there was no reason to use a police dog.
The second claim alleged that the handler used excessive force by allowing the dog to remain biting the client for so long. Specifically, that the 41 second bite was unnecessary and brutal as the client was not resisting arrest and under the complete control of the officers. Both theories are recognized in Arizona and the other states which are in the Ninth Circuit.
The Civil Rights Claims Against the Other Police Officers
The lawsuit also alleged civil rights claims against the other police officers present who assisted in arresting the client. Two claims were advanced against those officers. The first claim was for failure to intervene.
This claim alleged that the police officers were guilty in the dog handler’s use of excessive force by failing to stop him from releasing the dog. It also alleged that they failed to stop the dog handler from allowing the dog on the bite for too long. As such, the officers could be held liable for the handler’s excessive force by failing to intervene to stop it.
The second claim alleged that the officers were integral participants in the dog handler’s use of excessive force. Although, those police officers were not the main party responsible, they played a role that was meaningful. In sum, their participation was enough to allow a jury to find them complicit in the violation of the client’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force.
Police Officers Can be Held Responsible for Failing to Intervene in the Use of Excessive Force
The law in Arizona, and other states in the Ninth Circuit, holds that a police officer can be held responsible for a constitutional violation if he fails to stop it. Under the law, a police officer has a duty to intervene and stop constitutional violations of other officers. This includes stopping the unconstitutional use of excessive force.
The test for when an officer must intervene and can be held liable requires a two-part analysis.
- Did the police officer observe a constitutional violation?
- Did the policy officer have a reasonable opportunity to intervene and stop the violation?
This standard was established in the case Cunningham v. Gates. It is still the current state of the law and applies to all police officers.
Under the law, a police officer has a duty to intervene and stop constitutional violations of other officers.
The reasoning makes perfect sense. Officers are sworn to uphold the laws of the United States including the Constitution and the Amendments. If they observe violations of these laws, they are obligated to stop them if they have the opportunity. This even includes stopping other officers from committing violations when necessary.
Police Officers Can Be Integral Participants in Another Officer’s Use of Excessive Force
Even if a police officer is not the main officer inflicting the excessive force, he or she can still be held responsible if they contributed in some meaningful way. This is known as the integral participation doctrine. A recent Ninth Circuit opinion set forth the amount of involvement required to be held responsible.
In Peck v. Montoya, the court set forth the following standards for when an officer could be responsible for his or her integral participation:
(1) the [officer] knows about and acquiesces in the constitutionally defective conduct as part of a common plan with those whose conduct constitutes the violation or (2) the [officer] “set[s] in motion a series of acts by others which [the defendant] knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury.”
Even if a police officer is not the main officer inflicting the excessive force, he or she can still be held responsible if they contributed in some meaningful way.
The Decision Before the Appeal in the Case We Handled
In the excessive force case involving the client, the lower court ruled that the handler was excused from his decision to release the dog. The court noted that they were not saying it was appropriate, but concluded that there was no case law that would have put the officer on notice that releasing the dog was a constitutional violation. As a result, the lower court granted him qualified immunity.
Qualified Immunity is a doctrine that allows police officers to escape liability for constitutional violations if there is no previous published precedent that would put them on notice that their actions constituted a violation. Indeed, there are court opinions where the court has concluded that an officer used excessive force, but that no previous decision specifically set forth that his actions were excessive force. In those cases, the officers were let off the hook due to qualified immunity.
In our case, the lower court ruled against the dog handler with respect to how long he left the dog on the bite. The dog handler claimed that he was entitled to qualified immunity. However, the district court ruled against him. The court cited to previous cases that explained that leaving a police dog on an unarmed individual under the control of police for too long could constitute excessive force. It was this ruling that the police officer appealed.
The Appeal on the Duration of the Bite Theory
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal held argument on the appeal on July 11, 2024. C. Tony Piccuta attended the oral argument in San Francisco, California. He presented argument as to why the lower court’s decision was correct in denying qualified immunity to the officer on the duration of the bite excessive force claim.
The Ninth Circuit agreed. On August 16, 2024, the Court issued its ruling holding that the lower court properly denied qualified immunity to the dog handler on this claim. The case will now move forward and proceed to trial.
The oral argument was aired live by the Ninth Circuit and it can be viewed by clicking HERE on the Ninth Circuit’s website in its oral argument archives.
Contact an Elite Civil Rights Lawyer for Your Police Brutality Case
If you or a loved one was the victim of police brutality or other police misconduct, contact our office today. Our civil rights lawyers have decades of experience handling complicated civil rights cases. We have proven time and time again that we will hold police accountable if they abuse their authority. Our civil rights cases have received national media attention and have influenced how police conduct themselves with respect to their tactical decisions. An experienced police brutality attorney is available now to discuss your case.
About the author: The content on this page was provided by Scottsdale personal injury attorney and civil rights lawyer Tony Piccuta. Piccuta graduated with honors from Indiana University-Maurer School of Law in Bloomington, Indiana (Previously Ranked Top 35 US News & World Report). Piccuta took and passed the State bars of Arizona, California, Illinois and Nevada (all on the first try). He actively practices throughout Arizona and California. He is a trial attorney that regularly handles serious personal injury cases and civil rights lawsuits. He has obtained six and seven figure verdicts in both state and federal court. He has been recognized by Super Lawyers for six years straight. He is a member of the Arizona Association of Justice, Maricopa County Bar Association, Scottsdale Bar Association, American Association for Justice, National Police Accountability Project and Consumer Attorneys of California, among other organizations.
Disclaimer: The information on this web site is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information on this page is attorney advertising. Reading and relying upon the content on this page does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you are seeking legal advice, you should contact our law firm for a free consultation and to discuss your specific case and issues.
References:
[1]
[2] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9236461529013220809&q=Peck+v.+Montoya&hl=en&as_sdt=2006
[3] https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/video/?20240711/23-16009/
