|
Abstract
|
No matter how it begins, a police encounter may end in death, especially when the encounter involves people of color.1 There is no safe haven. Police-involved shootings happen everywhere—on the street,2 in a parked car,3 in a public park,4 or inside one’s own home.5 Police violence is a constant, its occurrence so predictable that cities purchase insurance policies to pay those injured by the police or set aside money for this purpose alone.6 This Piece considers how the foreseeability of police-involved shootings affects civil rights recovery for the shooting victims.
Though police-involved shootings are common, shooting victims rarely prevail in civil rights actions.7 The Supreme Court has ruled for officers who shoot in an ever-expanding set of circumstances,8 and qualified immunity protects officers even if they violate constitutional rights.9 Only violations of clearly established rights “of which a reasonable person would have known” may lead to liability.10 Qualified immunity applied in Brosseau v. Haugen, in which the defendant officer shot a fleeing suspect in the back.11 No case “squarely” governed whether an officer could “shoot a disturbed felon, set on avoiding capture through vehicular flight, when persons in the immediate area are at risk from that flight.”12 As Erwin Chemerinsky has noted, a right is “clearly established” only if there exists “an exact case on point.”13
As a result of officer-friendly qualified immunity precedent, the outcome in the civil rights action brought by shooting victims Jennifer and Angel Mendez seemed predictable. The Mendezes14 were asleep on a futon when Los Angeles County Sherriff’s deputies, searching for a wanted parolee, entered their home and fired fifteen rounds, causing severe injuries.15 But the Mendezes’ civil rights action did not result in an officer-friendly outcome. They obtained a $4 million damages award.16 Following a Supreme Court remand, the Ninth Circuit held that when officers entered their home “armed and on alert,” without a warrant, consent, or other justification, the shooting that followed was foreseeable.17 The Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable home entries is, under circumstances like the entry in Mendez, a clearly established right.
Jennifer and Angel Mendez were shot under incredulous circumstances. Following a tip that Ronnie O’Dell, a parolee on the lam, was in or near a home owned by Paula Hughes, a task force of Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputies devised a plan to capture him.18 The officers had information that O’Dell was recently at a home belonging to Roseanne Larsen.19 As a result, the plan provided that several officers would proceed to the Larsen home, while others, including deputies Conley and Pederson, would proceed to the Hughes residence.20 Conley and Pederson were assigned to cover the back door of the Hughes residence in the event that O’Dell tried to escape through it.21 They were also tasked with ascertaining whether O’Dell was hiding behind the Hughes property.22 During the planning session, another deputy announced that “a male named Angel (Mendez) lived in the backyard of the Hughes residence with a pregnant lady (Mrs. Mendez).”23
Jennifer and Angel Mendez lived in a shack in the Hughes’ backyard.24 The wood and plywood structure was approximately seven feet wide, seven feet long, and seven feet tall.25 A blue blanket hung from the top of the shack’s doorway, and both a hinged screen door and wooden door separated the blanket from the outside.26 An electrical cord and a water hose ran into the shack.27 A blue tarp covered its roof.28 An air conditioner was mounted on one of its sides.29 At the time of the shooting, the Mendezes had lived in the shack for about ten months.30 …
Fernando Sauceda was killed by officers who entered his home shortly after midnight on New Year’s Day.135 Officers Harris and Pollard were assigned to patrol Sauceda’s neighborhood, on the lookout for “celebratory gunfire.”136 As part of a special operations team, they wore “an olive green, fatigue-style shirt with subdued-colored [North Las Vegas Police Department] insignia patches on each arm, and a duty belt.”137
The officers drove past Sauceda’s home while patrolling in their unmarked pickup truck.138 After circling the block, Pollard thought he saw an individual in the Sauceda backyard holding a shiny object that looked like the barrel of a rifle.139 The officers parked their truck a few houses away from Sauceda’s.140 They heard gunshots in the distance, but could not determine which backyard they were coming from.141 The officers exited their truck, and walked toward the Sauceda residence.142 An individual standing in the driveway asked them who they were.143 The officers then turned on their flashlights and “rushed onto the property.”144 They claimed they identified themselves as police officers, but witnesses disagreed.145 Their attire did not obviously identify them as law enforcement.146
After Mendez, it is difficult to read this account of the officers’ patrol without pausing to consider if the officers’ disguise and unmarked truck are cause for concern. These details may render their later entry into a home or its curtilage the kind of anxiety-filled situation that Mendez urges officers to avoid.147 Out of uniform, the officers may look like intruders.
The scene quickly turned chaotic. Pollard chased after individuals running toward the Sauceda residence.148 He ran toward the home’s porch, which was “enclosed with a tarp.”149 He pulled back the tarp and “noticed movement to his left.”150 He turned to find Fernando Sauceda “pointing a gun at his face . . . . Pollard held down Sauceda’s right arm.”151 The two tussled, Sauceda tried to flee, and Pollard fired twelve shots.152 Sauceda was hit nine times and died.153
In the civil rights action that followed, Estate of Sauceda v. North Las Vegas, plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that the officer’s use of deadly force violated Sauceda’s Fourth Amendment rights.154 Before the second Mendez opinion, the use of force that caused Sauceda’s death would likely have been deemed reasonable. After all, Sauceda pointed a gun at the officer who shot him.155
But following the Supreme Court’s Mendez decision, the Sauceda court ordered the parties to recommence their summary judgment briefing and address Mendez.156 In the opinion that followed, the court first rejected defendants’ summary judgment argument that their entry into the Sauceda home was justified by an exception to the warrant requirement.157 Defendants entered Sauceda’s curtilage (the porch) even though there was no clear emergency or exigent circumstance.158 …
Language: en |