Warren Prostrollo v. City of Scottsdale
676 F. App'x 678
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jason Prostrollo threatened two people with a knife earlier that evening and later emerged from a house armed with two halves of a pool cue.
- Officers ordered Prostrollo to halt; he ignored warnings and walked toward officers, advancing within approximately 21 feet when Lt. Bayne fired.
- Lt. Bayne did not know whether Prostrollo still carried the earlier knife when he fired.
- A disputed fact: whether a police dog had been released and was biting or subduing Prostrollo when Lt. Bayne fired; evidence suggests the dog may have been attacking and that one shot struck the dog and another struck Prostrollo.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Ninth Circuit majority affirmed, while Judge Watford dissented, arguing the dispute about the dog’s location should preclude summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lt. Bayne’s use of deadly force was objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment | Bayne shot Prostrollo after the police dog had subdued him and while Prostrollo was ~17–20 feet away, armed only with pool-cue halves, so no immediate deadly threat existed | Prostrollo ignored commands, advanced with a potentially deadly weapon, and Bayne reasonably believed threat remained (unknown if knife present); officer fired before close-contact range | Use of deadly force was objectively reasonable; summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
| Whether the presence or deployment of the police dog precludes summary judgment | Dog had bitten Prostrollo and was subduing him when Bayne fired, eliminating an immediate threat | Even if the dog was attacking, officers need not use the least intrusive means; the circumstances still made force reasonable | Disputed dog facts do not preclude summary judgment because Bayne’s actions could still be reasonable |
| Municipal liability under Monell | City policies/practices caused constitutional violation | No underlying constitutional violation, so Monell claim fails | Monell claim dismissed because no constitutional violation was found |
| State-law wrongful-death/justification defense under Arizona law | Shooting was unjustified under state law because no imminent threat existed | Arizona statutes permit deadly force when officer reasonably believes suspect endangers life | State-law claims properly dismissed; Arizona justification statutes support officers’ use of deadly force when reasonable belief of danger exists |
Key Cases Cited
- Billington v. Smith, 292 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2002) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness does not require least-intrusive means)
- Wilkinson v. Torres, 610 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010) (excessive-force analysis framework)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires underlying constitutional violation)
- City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796 (per curiam) (Monell and related dismissal principles)
- Marquez v. City of Phoenix, 693 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 2012) (Arizona justification statutes and the use of force)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (deadly force prohibited absent immediate threat of serious harm)