Supreme Court Rules 8-0 for Police in Major Fourth Amendment Case, Eliminates Provocation Doctrine

[Dave70968]

http://reason.com/blog/2017/05/30/supreme-court-rules-8-0-for-police-in-ma

In 2002 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said that the lawful use of deadly force by the police may be ruled unlawful if the police themselves "created the need to use force" by acting in an illegal manner. "Where an officer intentionally or recklessly provokes a violent confrontation, if the provocation is an independent Fourth Amendment violation," the 9th Circuit held in Billington v. Smith, the officer "may be held liable for his otherwise defensive use of deadly force." Otherwise known as the "provocation doctrine," this legal standard has served as an important check on overreaching law enforcement tactics. Today, by a vote of 8-0, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the 9th Circuit's reasoning and wiped the provocation doctrine off the books.

At issue today in County of Los Angeles v. Mendez was a 2010 incident in which two deputies from the L.A. County Sheriff's Department entered the residence of Angel Mendez and Jennifer Garcia without a search warrant, spotted Mendez holding a BB gun (which he kept on hand to fend off rats), and shot both Mendez and Garcia multiple times in ostensible self-defense. Mendez's right leg was later amputated below the knee as a result of his injuries. Garcia was shot in the back.

Mendez and Garcia sued, charging the police with illegal search, illegal seizure, and illegal use of force under the Fourth Amendment. In March 2016, Mendez and Garcia prevailed at the 9th Circuit, which rejected the officers' pleas for qualified immunity and instead held that the two detectives were "liable for the shooting as a foreseeable consequence of their unconstitutional entry even though the shooting itself was not unconstitutionally excessive force under the Fourth Amendment." In other words, Mendez and Garcia prevailed under the provocation doctrine.


Writing today for a unanimous Supreme Court, Justice Samuel Alito overturned that 9th Circuit decision, dismantled the provocation doctrine, and ruled in favor of the officers. The provocation doctrine "is incompatible with our excessive force jurisprudence," Justice Alito declared. "The rule's fundamental flaw is that it uses another constitutional violation to manufacture an excessive force claim where one would not otherwise exist." According to Alito, "there is no need to dress up every Fourth Amendment claim as an excessive force claim."

Of course, if the police had not violated the Constitution to begin with in this case, the police would not have had the opportunity to use any sort of force at all. The indisputable fact is that Angel Mendez would still have the use of his right leg if the detectives had not disobeyed the Fourth Amendment, illegally entered his home, and shot him.

The Supreme Court's opinion in County of Los Angeles v. Mendez is available here.

Boldface mine.

So, if you lawfully have a gun in your own home, and you're just sitting there, minding your own business, and the police unlawfully bust in on you and see the gun, it's not excessive force to shoot you.

This is truly an instance where the victim did nothing wrong, the police did everything wrong, but they get to shoot him anyway, and the Court just held that it's not excessive force.

But we don't live in a police state.

 

[doctorjj]

Wow! Qualified immunity needs to take about 10 steps back from where it is. I'd like to see it go away completely.

 

[Pokinfun]

I'm not sure I disagree with the decision. Did the police follow procedures for using deadly force, or did they merely bust in and start shooting.
Why were the police searching the home, was it a mistake? Did the police have reason to believe there was a danger to someone, that required them to enter the home without a warrant? Did Mendez point the gun at them?
I'm sorry, but I do not see the police as jackboot government thugs, they have the right to defend themselves.
I guess if you want to jump on the Black Lives Matter wagon, all police are criminals.
I think the police have the right to defend themselves, and citizens have the obligation to obey their orders. The citizen then has the right to take them to court, if the police violated the law, later.

 

[montesa]

I'm not sure I disagree with the decision. Did the police follow procedures for using deadly force, or did they merely bust in and start shooting.
Why were the police searching the home, was it a mistake? Did the police have reason to believe there was a danger to someone, that required them to enter the home without a warrant? Did Mendez point the gun at them?
I'm sorry, but I do not see the police as jackboot government thugs, they have the right to defend themselves.
I guess if you want to jump on the Black Lives Matter wagon, all police are criminals.
I think the police have the right to defend themselves, and citizens have the obligation to obey their orders. The citizen then has the right to take them to court, if the police violated the law, later.

Some of your questions are answered in the link.

 

[Pokinfun]

Some of your questions are answered in the link.

well?

 

[Defcon Shooter]

Well I agree with the decision. If the Police entered the premises after announcing their presence while believing their actions to be legal under an exigent circumstance the proper venue for redress is court not the act of pointing a weapon at them. The entry itself unless unannounced would not justify the use of deadly force. It would preclude any evidence found as a result of the illegal entry to be inadmissible. How ever had they had a properly attained warrant and entered just as they had the response to the brandishing of the weapon would be the same with no question of legal action. Where I see problems is ER Teams and SOT's doing no knock and dynamic entry's and the line between reasonable and unreasonable is being blurred. The litigants in the case could have simply come to the door had the officers ID themselves and opened up or told them to buzz off. Under today's court precedents you can't resist unlawful arrest or entry with violence or threat of violence.

 

[Dave70968]

I'm not sure I disagree with the decision. Did the police follow procedures for using deadly force, or did they merely bust in and start shooting.

Well I agree with the decision. If the Police entered the premises after announcing their presence while believing their actions to be legal under an exigent circumstance the proper venue for redress is court not the act of pointing a weapon at them. The entry itself unless unannounced would not justify the use of deadly force. It would preclude any evidence found as a result of the illegal entry to be inadmissible. How ever had they had a properly attained warrant and entered just as they had the response to the brandishing of the weapon would be the same with no question of legal action. Where I see problems is ER Teams and SOT's doing no knock and dynamic entry's and the line between reasonable and unreasonable is being blurred. The litigants in the case could have simply come to the door had the officers ID themselves and opened up or told them to buzz off. Under today's court precedents you can't resist unlawful arrest or entry with violence or threat of violence.

The police did not knock and/or announce their presence at the structure in question, and they did not have any sort of warrant covering the premises. Jesus, I gave you the canonical link to the Court's opinion--which recites the factual background, as every SCOTUS opinion does--and you didn't bother to read it before telling us why it's right. If you had, you'd realize your assumed facts are wrong.

Here, let me quote the relevant paragraph. Please at least read this much; I'll even boldface the extra-important bits:

Deputies Conley and Pederson first checked the three metal sheds and found no one inside. Id., at 65a. They then approached the door of the shack. Id., at 66a. Unbeknownst to the officers, Mendez and Garcia were in the shack and were napping on a futon. Id., at 67a. The deputies did not have a search warrant and did not knock and announce their presence. Id., at 66a. When Deputy Conley opened the wooden door and pulled back the blanket, Mendez thought it was Ms. Hughes and rose from the bed, picking up the BB gun so he could stand up and place it on the floor. Id., at 68a. As a result, when the deputies entered, he was holding the BB gun, and it was “point[ing] somewhat south towards Deputy Conley.” Id., at 69a. Deputy Conley yelled, “Gun!” and the deputies immediately opened fire, discharging a total of 15 rounds. Id., at 69a– 70a. Mendez and Garcia “were shot multiple times and suffered severe injuries,” and Mendez’s right leg was later amputated below the knee. Id., at 70a. O’Dell was not in the shack or anywhere on the property. Ibid.

Now, if the deputies had bothered to knock and announce themselves, I'd bet money Mendez would have been awake when they entered and would not have groggily swept them. That is the whole point of the claim: the police created the situation themselves when they illegally entered the shack without a warrant and without knocking.

Reading is fundamental.

 

[Pokinfun]

The police did not knock and/or announce their presence at the structure in question, and they did not have any sort of warrant covering the premises. Jesus, I gave you the canonical link to the Court's opinion--which recites the factual background, as every SCOTUS opinion does--and you didn't bother to read it before telling us why it's right. If you had, you'd realize your assumed facts are wrong.

Here, let me quote the relevant paragraph. Please at least read this much; I'll even boldface the extra-important bits:

Now, if the deputies had bothered to knock and announce themselves, I'd bet money Mendez would have been awake when they entered and would not have groggily swept them. That is the whole point of the claim: the police created the situation themselves when they illegally entered the shack without a warrant and without knocking.

Reading is fundamental.

Dave, there is a reason why I do not like to respond to anything you post and act like a prick when you respond to me.

 

[Glocktogo]

Dave, there is a reason why I do not like to respond to anything you post and act like a prick when you respond to me.

I frequently disagree with him, but the answers were in his original post, in the link, Montessa told you they were in the link and you had an hour to read the link before Dave pointed out your mistake.

There is no flag on the play. Carry on!

 

[Pokinfun]

I frequently disagree with him, but the answers were in his original post, in the link, Montessa told you they were in the link and you had an hour to read the link before Dave pointed out your mistake.

There is no flag on the play. Carry on!

I read them before I posted the first time.