In City of Escondido
v. Emmons, the Supreme Court examined if qualified immunity applied when two
police officers forcibly apprehended a man at the scene of a reported domestic
violence incident.
In April of 2013, Escondido police received a 911 call concerning
a possible domestic disturbance at Maggie Emmons' apartment. Officer Houchin
and Officer Robert Craig responded to the call. The entire event was captured
on Body Worn Cameras (“BWC”).
Upon arriving at the scene, the two Officers knocked on the
door of the apartment. No one answered. However, a side window was open. The
two officers spoke with Maggie through that window. They were attempting to
convince Maggie to open the door to her apartment so that they could conduct a
welfare check. At the same time, a male inside the apartment began telling Maggie
to back away from that window.
A few moments later, a man opened the apartment door and
came outside. At that point, Officer Craig was standing alone just outside the
door. Officer Craig told the man not to close the door, but the man closed the
door and tried to brush past him. Officer Craig stopped the man, took him
quickly to the ground, and handcuffed him.
Officer Craig did not hit the man, nor display any weapon.
The BWC footage shows that the man was not in any visible or audible pain as a
result of the takedown or while on the ground. Within a few minutes, the officers
helped the man up and arrested him for a misdemeanor offense of resisting and
delaying a police officer.
The man turned out to be Maggie Emmons' father, Marty
Emmons. Marty Emmons later sued Officer Craig claiming excessive force.
The Trial court rejected his claim. It noted that the
"video shows that the officers acted professionally and respectfully.” Moreover,
the trial court held that the officers were entitled to “qualified immunity”
because the officers were responding to a domestic dispute, and that the
encounter had escalated when the officers could not enter the apartment to
conduct a welfare check. In fact, the trial court pointed out that when Marty
Emmons exited the apartment, none of the officers knew whether he was armed or
dangerous, or whether he had injured any individuals inside the apartment.
The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court. It held that “it
is sometimes difficult for an officer to determine how the relevant legal
doctrine, here excessive force, will apply to the factual situation the officer
confronts. Use of excessive force is an area of the law in which the result
depends very much on the facts of each case, and thus police officers are
entitled to qualified immunity unless existing precedent squarely governs the
specific facts at issue.”
