Steven A. Hyer v. City and County of Honolulu, 654 F.Supp.3d 1111

On June 22–23, 2018, HPD responded twice to reports that Steven K. Hyer was erratic and threatening co‑tenants; a police psychologist ordered Hyer detained for a mental‑health evaluation (MH1).
Hyer barricaded himself in a studio apartment, brandished a knife (after an initial Taser deployment), and later armed himself with a compound bow and arrows.
Specialized Services (React Team) established a perimeter, used chemical munitions, breached a bathroom window, and deployed a police dog (Zero) to flush Hyer out.
During the canine takedown, Hyer stabbed the dog multiple times with an arrow, swung an arrow at officers, and began loading the bow; Corporal Malo Torres fired three rounds, striking Hyer, who later died.
Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force), Title II of the ADA, and state tort causes of action; defendants moved for summary judgment and/or qualified immunity.
The court excluded plaintiffs’ expert reports as inadmissible, considered police reports, and granted summary judgment/qualified immunity to the individual officers and the City; state claims were barred by conditional privilege and lack of respondeat superior liability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Excessive force (Fourth Amendment)	Hyer was not pointing/loading the bow at officers when shot; force was unreasonable	Officers faced an immediate deadly threat after Hyer stabbed K‑9 and swung an arrow and began loading the bow	Court: No excessive force; use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under Graham factors
Qualified immunity for individual officers	Officers violated clearly established law and are not immune	Even if force borderline, no clearly established precedent put officers on notice	Court: Qualified immunity granted — plaintiffs failed to identify controlling precedent clearly establishing unlawfulness
ADA Title II claim against City	Hyer’s mental disability led to discriminatory failure to accommodate, producing constitutional injury	No evidence officers acted because of disability; Hyer posed a direct threat and detention was lawfully ordered	Court: Summary judgment for City — no ADA violation shown and direct‑threat exception applies
State law torts / respondeat superior / conditional privilege	City and officers liable under state tort law and agency liability	Officers entitled to conditional privilege; no clear and convincing evidence of malice; City not liable if officers privileged	Court: Officers entitled to conditional privilege; City not liable under respondeat superior; summary judgment for defendants

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective‑reasonableness test for Fourth Amendment excessive‑force claims)
Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (qualified immunity requires particularized, clearly established law in Fourth Amendment cases)
County of Los Angeles v. Mendez, 581 U.S. 420 (reasonableness judged from facts known to officers; rejection of provocation rule as automatic defense)
Cruz v. City of Anaheim, 765 F.3d 1076 (officers may shoot where suspect makes movements reasonably indicating access to a deadly weapon)
Peck v. Montoya, 51 F.4th 877 (integral‑participant standard; non‑shooting officers entitled to immunity absent evidence they set in motion unconstitutional acts)
Blanford v. Sacramento Cnty., 406 F.3d 1110 (deadly force implicates highest Fourth Amendment interest; framework for evaluation)
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (deadly force justified only when suspect poses immediate threat of serious harm)
Long v. Cnty. & Cnty. of Honolulu, 511 F.3d 901 (reasonableness of deadly force where officer perceives imminent threat)
Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7 (emphasizing the need for specificity in excessive‑force qualified‑immunity analysis)