Lal v. California
746 F.3d 1112
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Lai led a 45-minute, high-speed pursuit over highways and streets after a domestic disturbance report by his wife.
- During the chase Lai indicated he wanted to kill himself or have the police shoot him; CHP learned he had no gun and no warrants.
- Lai exited his truck, struck himself with a rock, attempted to impale himself on a metal pole, and then advanced on officers while holding a football-sized rock.
- Lai mimed pointing a cell phone as a gun toward officers; he threw rocks at the officers, shattering a spotlight, while ignoring commands to drop the rock.
- Officers Otterby and Newman shot Lai from close range when he advanced to within a few feet with a rock raised; about four minutes elapsed from Lai stopping to the shooting.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the use of deadly force violate the Fourth Amendment? | Lai's family contends officers used excessive force given the totality of circumstances. | Officers acted to prevent imminent serious harm; force was reasonable under the circumstances. | No; force was objectively reasonable. |
| Was Lai's right to be free from excessive force clearly established? | Right to be free from deadly force in such a scenario was clearly established. | Qualified immunity applies where reasonable officers could believe force was justified. | Right not clearly established enough to defeat immunity. |
| Were the officers entitled to qualified immunity under the totality of the circumstances? | Officers should have de-escalated or used less intrusive means before deadly force. | Immediate threat from Lai and prior actions justified deadly force; no duty to retreat in these circumstances. | Yes; officers were entitled to qualified immunity. |
| Did initiating or continuing the confrontation negate immunity under Billington/Reynolds? | Officers provoked the confrontation, making deadly force unreasonable. | No improper provocation; officers acted within reasonable bounds given Lai's conduct. | No; no provocative conduct that voided immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (U.S. 2011) (clearly established standard for qualified immunity)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (objective reasonableness of force; totality of circumstances)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (two-pronged test for qualified immunity; order can vary by case)
- Mattos v. Agarano, 661 F.3d 433 (9th Cir. 2011) (qualified immunity shields officers absent clearly established rights)
- Billington v. Smith, 292 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2002) (no requirement to use least intrusive means; reasonableness governs)
- Scott v. Henrich, 39 F.3d 912 (9th Cir. 1994) (split-second decisions; not required to wait for backup)
- Reynolds v. County of San Diego, 84 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 1996) (balance feasible alternatives against immediate threat; imminent harm standard)
- A.D. v. California Highway Patrol, 712 F.3d 446 (9th Cir. 2013) (deadly force may be improper when not tied to legitimate objective)
- Glenn v. Washington County, 673 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2011) (beanbag shotgun case; harmed non-threatening suspect)