118 F.4th 1044
9th Cir.2024Background
- Steven K. Hyer was killed by police after a prolonged standoff at his home, following reports of erratic and threatening behavior, including brandishing weapons.
- HPD attempted to detain Hyer under a mental health emergency application; Hyer refused to comply and became increasingly agitated.
- Police used a series of escalating tactics: Taser, chemical munitions, and ultimately a police dog, before Hyer was shot and killed by a SWAT officer.
- Plaintiffs (Hyer's family) sued the City and County of Honolulu and HPD officers, alleging excessive force and violations of federal and state law, including the ADA.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants, excluding Plaintiffs’ expert reports in their entirety and finding officers entitled to qualified immunity.
- Plaintiffs appealed, challenging the wholesale exclusion of expert reports crucial to their opposition to summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of Expert Reports | Experts’ opinions were relevant and admissible. | Reports were speculative, introduced non-record facts/legal conclusions. | Exclusion was erroneous and prejudicial; remanded for proper consideration. |
| Excessive Force – Deadly Force | Use of deadly force was unreasonable; Hyer not an immediate threat. | Officers had probable cause to perceive a deadly threat. | Genuine disputes exist; summary judgment on this issue reversed. |
| Excessive Force – Chemical Munitions | Force used excessive; less violent options ignored. | Chemical munitions justified by threat posed by Hyer. | Fact disputes exist; summary judgment reversed as to this claim. |
| ADA and State Law Claims | Defendants failed to accommodate Hyer’s mental disability. | Disability was not the basis for actions; threat justified response. | Fact disputes require trial for most claims, except disparate treatment ADA claim. |
| Qualified Immunity – Deadly Force/Chemical Munitions | Rights were clearly established; immunity unavailable. | No clearly established law prohibited officers’ actions. | Officers not entitled to immunity for deadly force/munitions, but are for police dog use. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective reasonableness standard for police use of force)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (deadly force and constitutional limits in seizure)
- Est. of Lopez ex rel. Lopez v. Gelhaus, 871 F.3d 998 (summary judgment sparingly granted in excessive force cases with factual disputes)
- Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689 (applicability of expert testimony in excessive force cases)
- Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272 (reasonableness factors and the diminished government interest when dealing with mentally ill suspects)
- Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805 (consideration of less intrusive alternatives in use of force analysis)
- Sheehan v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 743 F.3d 1211 (ADA reasonable accommodation in law enforcement encounters with disabled individuals)
- Nelson v. City of Davis, 685 F.3d 867 (intermediate force and the need for substantial governmental justification)