Hayes v. County of San Diego
57 Cal. 4th 622
| Cal. | 2013Background
- Deputies King and Geer responded to a neighbor’s call and entered Shane Hayes’s home for a welfare check after his girlfriend reported a prior suicide attempt; they did not ask about intoxication or call psychiatric backup.
- With guns holstered, deputies encountered Shane holding a large knife in a raised right hand; after ordering him to show his hands he walked toward them and they fired, killing him at a distance of roughly 2–8 feet.
- Plaintiff Chelsey Hayes (Shane’s daughter) sued in federal court asserting federal Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims and state-law negligence and negligent-training claims.
- The federal district court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding deadly force was objectively reasonable and that officers owed no separate duty regarding preshooting conduct, relying on Adams and Munoz.
- The Ninth Circuit asked the California Supreme Court whether California negligence law imposes a duty on officers when preparing, approaching, and performing welfare checks on suicidal persons; California Supreme Court reframed the question to whether preshooting tactical decisions can give rise to negligence liability for a later use of deadly force.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether preshooting tactical conduct and decisions by law enforcement can support negligence liability for a later use of deadly force | Hayes: Preshooting decisions (e.g., not seeking psychiatric help, entering) may have negligently provoked or contributed to the fatal shooting and thus are part of the negligence claim | County/Deputies: No separate duty as to preshooting conduct; preshooting decisions cannot form basis for negligence when deadly force was later justified (relying on Adams, Munoz) | The court held preshooting conduct is relevant as part of the totality of circumstances; liability can arise if such conduct shows the ultimate use of deadly force was unreasonable. Courts should not treat preshooting acts in isolation when no separate independent injury is alleged. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grudt v. City of Los Angeles, 2 Cal.3d 575 (Cal. 1970) (officers’ preshooting conduct may be considered in totality to determine negligence for a shooting)
- Olin v. Munoz, 24 Cal.3d 629 (Cal. 1979) (peace officers must act reasonably when using deadly force)
- Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (Cal. 1968) (factors for imposing duty in negligence law)
- Hernandez v. City of Pomona, 46 Cal.4th 501 (Cal. 2009) (reviewed preshooting evidence but did not decide abstract validity of preshooting negligence theory)
- Adams v. City of Fremont, 68 Cal.App.4th 243 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (held officers owed no duty re: preshooting conduct in a suicide-context)
- Munoz v. City of Union City, 120 Cal.App.4th 1077 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (applied Adams to limit preshooting liability in a police-shooting case; disapproved to extent inconsistent with this opinion)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (use-of-force reasonableness judged from objective reasonable officer perspective)
- Billington v. Smith, 292 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2002) (Fourth Amendment focus tends to narrow inquiry to moment deadly force was used)