Lawrence Thompson v. Pete Copeland
885 F.3d 582
9th Cir.2018Background
- Deputy Copeland stopped Lawrence Thompson for traffic violations, learned Thompson had a suspended license and a prior felony conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm, and decided to arrest him and impound the car.
- Copeland patted Thompson down, found no weapons, and had Thompson sit on the bumper of Copeland’s patrol car while Copeland conducted an inventory search of the vehicle.
- During the search Copeland saw a loaded revolver in an open bag on the rear passenger floorboard about 10–15 feet from Thompson.
- A backup deputy watched Thompson (Thompson was not handcuffed), and Copeland then drew his service weapon; parties dispute whether Copeland held the gun in a low-ready posture or pointed it at Thompson’s head and threatened to kill him.
- Thompson was ordered to get on the ground, was handcuffed without incident, later charged (state charges were dismissed under state-constitution suppression), and sued Copeland under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourth Amendment excessive force.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Copeland based on qualified immunity; the Ninth Circuit panel held the conduct was excessive force but affirmed qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established in 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pointing a loaded gun at Thompson’s head under these facts violated the Fourth Amendment (excessive force) | Thompson: pointing a gun at a calm, compliant, already-patted-down, unarmed suspect seated 10–15 ft from a weapon is excessive force | Copeland: display was reasonable given a nearby firearm, felony arrest, nighttime stop, suspect not secured and larger than officer | Court: Conduct (as alleged) was excessive force — pointing a gun at head and threatening to kill was objectively unreasonable |
| Whether officers were entitled to qualified immunity (was the right clearly established in 2011) | Thompson: prior Ninth Circuit precedent (e.g., Robinson, Hopkins) clearly put officers on notice that pointing a gun at a compliant, unarmed suspect is unconstitutional | Copeland: circumstances (nighttime traffic stop, proximate firearm, felony suspect, not handcuffed, fewer officers, suspect’s size) distinguish earlier cases and made legality not "beyond debate" | Court: Right not clearly established in 2011 given intervening precedent and contextual differences; qualified immunity affirmed |
| Whether factual disputes precluded summary judgment on excessive force claim | Thompson: disputed material facts (whether gun was pointed at his head and threats made) require crediting his version at summary judgment | Copeland: claimed low-ready posture, less-severe force | Court: Must view facts in plaintiff’s favor at summary judgment; excessive-force violation exists on those facts |
| Remedy and prospective rule | Thompson: sought relief for constitutional violation and denial of immunity | Copeland: immunity protects suit | Held: Although qualified immunity applies to this defendant on these facts, court clarified that going forward the law is clearly established for similar scenarios (no immunity in future identical facts) |
Key Cases Cited
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (procedural two-step for qualified immunity)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (courts may address qualified-immunity prongs in either order)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (excessive force standard under Fourth Amendment)
- Espinosa v. City & County of San Francisco, 598 F.3d 528 (pointing a loaded gun constitutes high level of force)
- Robinson v. Solano County, 278 F.3d 1007 (en banc) (pointing gun at cooperative, apparently unarmed suspect can violate Fourth Amendment)
- Hopkins v. Bonvicino, 573 F.3d 752 (pointing gun at an apparently unarmed arrestee can be excessive force)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (qualified immunity: clearly established law must be specific; protect all but plainly incompetent)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (clearly established right requires precedent placing question beyond debate)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (focus on whether particular conduct was clearly violative)
- Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (traffic stops are especially fraught with danger; context matters)