884 F. Supp. 2d 972
D. Ariz.2012Background
- David Hulstedt's 9-1-1 call regarding his infant daughter D.H. and his demand for officials; Trott's level-one dispatch and subsequent questioning of Janice and Walter Hulstedt show a distressed, mentally unstable scenario.
- Police surrounded the home; negotiators engaged David for several minutes while D.H. remained inside; David exited with D.H. and walked toward the street.
- Sgt. Dorer and Sgt. Slavin fired, hitting David in the back as he walked away with D.H.; Pospisil video records the shooting sequence and D.H.'s fall.
- Post-shooting actions included dragging David, handcuffing him, and a subsequent search of the house; conflicting radio/transcript accounts and witness statements informed disputes about force and procedures.
- Plaintiffs allege multiple Fourth Amendment violations and state-law claims, with claims for excessive force, battery, negligence, IIED, and Monell liability; the court grants and denies various motions for partial summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force: were the deadly force shootings reasonable? | Hulstedt argued officers violated Fourth Amendment by using deadly force. | Dorer/Slavin argued force reasonable under Graham factors. | No; officers' use of deadly force violated Fourth Amendment as unreasonable. |
| Qualified immunity: are Dorer and Slavin entitled to qualified immunity on claim one? | Plaintiffs argue rights were clearly established and not violated. | Defendants contend reasonable belief warranted the use of force. | Not entitled to qualified immunity; liability established. |
| Drag-and-transport: was dragging David to the ambulance excessive force? | Dragging caused knee injuries; excessive force under Graham. | Mistake-of-fact defense; reasonable under Torres factors. | Issue for jury; summary judgment denied for dragging claim. |
| Warrantless home entries: were the initial sweeps justified as emergency assistance? | Entries violated Fourth Amendment; no imminent danger to justify. | Emergency-entry exception could apply. | Warrantless sweeps not justified; qualified immunity denied; search invalid. |
| Monell liability: may City be liable for ratification or failure to train? | Ratification and failure-to-train theories support municipal liability. | No ratification; no program-wide training deficiency. | Monell claim: ratification survives; failure-to-train dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (establishes Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard for excessive force; Graham factors)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. 2007) (video contradicts version of events; court relies on video evidence in summary judgment)
- Blanford v. Sacramento Cty., 406 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (pre-2008 principle: deadly force only if immediate threat; warnings preferred)
- Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 1997) (warning before deadly force; immediacy requirement)
- Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272 (9th Cir. 2001) (requires warning before use of significant force where feasible)
- Boyd v. Benton Cty., 374 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 2004) (consideration of third-party safety in Graham analysis)
- Torres v. City of Madera, 648 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2011) (five-factor test for reasonable mistake of fact)