Adam Saetrum v. Jake Vogt
673 F. App'x 688
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- In Feb. 2013 Adam Todd Saetrum was arrested for dealing marijuana; during the arrest Officer Jake Vogt allegedly drove his patrol car into Saetrum and later performed a hands-on takedown that caused a concussion.
- Saetrum sued under § 1983 claiming excessive force for both the patrol-car impact and the takedown; Vogt moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.
- The district court denied summary judgment on both excessive-force claims; Vogt appealed the denial.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed whether (1) driving the patrol car into Saetrum constituted an intentional seizure and (2) whether Vogt is entitled to qualified immunity for the pat-down/takedown.
- The court held Vogt is not entitled to qualified immunity for the patrol-car impact (denial affirmed) but is entitled to qualified immunity for the takedown (denial reversed).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether driving the patrol car into Saetrum was a Fourth Amendment seizure/intentional use of force | Vogt intentionally accelerated/turned the car into Saetrum and thus seized him by force | Vogt lacked intent to hit Saetrum; contact was accidental | Jury could infer intent from evidence; summary judgment properly denied (seizure) |
| Whether using the patrol car as an impact weapon violated clearly established law | Use of a car as an impact weapon is at least intermediate/deadly force and unconstitutional here | No justification shown to justify such force | Clearly established; denial of qualified immunity affirmed |
| Whether Vogt’s hands-on takedown violated clearly established law | The takedown was excessive and caused injury (concussion) | Tackling under the circumstances was not clearly unconstitutional; reasonable officers lacked notice | Law not sufficiently clear given precedent; Vogt entitled to qualified immunity (denial reversed) |
| Standard for reviewing intent on interlocutory qualified-immunity appeal | (implicit) credibility and motive can be reviewed where defendant challenges sufficiency of evidence | (implicit) appellate review limited to questions of law but may review factual sufficiency on motive | Appellate court may review factual sufficiency regarding motive; applied here to patrol-car intent |
Key Cases Cited
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1988) (constitutional seizure intent standard)
- Mattos v. AgArano, 661 F.3d 433 (9th Cir. 2011) (using a vehicle as an impact weapon is significant/intermediate force)
- Young v. County of Los Angeles, 655 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2011) (intermediate force standard examples)
- Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2010) (intermediate force requires more than minimal government interest)
- Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 2007) (gang-tackling can be excessive force)
- Santos v. Gates, 287 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2002) (takedown causing severe injury can be excessive force)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) (physical force on a suspect constitutes a seizure)