87 F.4th 383
9th Cir.2023Background
- Officers Timothy Wright and Brett Willey responded to a 911 domestic-violence call; caller did not report weapons or request medics, and the children stated only a BB gun was in the house and that the mother might need an ambulance.
- Wright knocked and announced; the two children spoke with officers outside; Wright then re‑entered the house and Willey drew his firearm as they approached the interior hallway.
- Anderson, shirtless and (on the record viewed favorably to plaintiffs) unarmed with hands visible, cursed at officers, ignored a command to get on the ground, and moved rapidly down a short hallway toward the officers.
- Willey fired multiple rounds as Anderson crossed from the hallway into the kitchen; Wright also fired; Anderson was shot several times and died.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourth Amendment excessive force and Fourteenth Amendment familial‑interference; district court granted qualified immunity on constitutional claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims; Ninth Circuit affirmed qualified immunity on Fourth Amendment and rejected the Fourteenth Amendment claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourth Amendment: excessive force | Waid: officers used constitutionally excessive deadly force against an unarmed, non‑reaching Anderson who was not an immediate threat; prior precedent clearly put officers on notice. | Wright/Willey: facts do not show an obvious constitutional violation; officers had to make split‑second decisions facing a rapidly approaching subject and are entitled to qualified immunity. | Court: Qualified immunity granted; plaintiffs failed to identify controlling or clearly analogous precedent that would have put every reasonable officer on notice that the shootings were unconstitutional. |
| Fourteenth Amendment: familial‑interference (children’s substantive due process) | Waid: killing a parent without due process shocks the conscience and violated children’s liberty interest in family companionship. | Officers: encounter required a snap judgment in an escalating situation; no evidence officers acted with purpose to harm unrelated to law‑enforcement objectives. | Court: No Fourteenth Amendment violation; conduct was a snap judgment and did not shock the conscience. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (establishes qualified immunity standard)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (courts may address clearly established prong first)
- District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48 (2018) (requires controlling authority or robust consensus for clearly established Fourth Amendment rights)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (framework for evaluating excessive force under the Fourth Amendment)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force permissible only when suspect poses significant threat of death or serious harm)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (obviousness exception to specificity requirement in some contexts)
- Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (2004) (cautions against high‑level generality in clearly established analysis)
- A.K.H. ex rel. Landeros v. City of Tustin, 837 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2016) (denied qualified immunity where officer shot an unarmed suspect rapidly and without warning)
- Cruz v. City of Anaheim, 765 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2014) (reversed summary judgment where material disputes existed about whether suspect reached for weapon; established limits on shooting non‑reaching suspects)
- Zion v. County of Orange, 874 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2017) (officer obliged to reassess after initial shots; continued shooting where threat subsided can be unreasonable)
- Est. of Aguirre v. County of Riverside, 29 F.4th 624 (9th Cir. 2022) (example of an "obvious" constitutional violation where the decedent posed no immediate threat)
- Mattos v. Agarano, 661 F.3d 433 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (additional Graham‑factor guidance, including warnings and availability of less‑intrusive alternatives)