Because of a new ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, some firefighters and other first responders are finding themselves left without police backup as more and more departments are saying that they will no longer dispatch officers to certain 911 calls. The Sacramento County Sheriff announced Tuesday his deputies will no longer respond to mental health calls where a crime is not being committed. The shift in policy comes, Sheriff Jim Cooper said, after a 2024 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Scott v. Smith, 109 F.4th 1215 (2024).
Such circumstances create a dilemma for firefighters and medical providers: people need their help urgently but now, without law enforcement to secure the scene, they must potentially risk working in an unsafe environment. But why is this happening? The source of this particular issue stems from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that expands officers' potential liability when restraining a subject suffering from a mental health crisis.
The Facts
Roy Scott dialed 911 on March 3, 2019, claiming people were outside his apartment with a saw. Police officers Kyle Smith and Theodore Huntsman were the first to arrive, with dispatch alerting them that Scott was mentally ill. When they arrived at the apartment, they knocked and identified themselves, remaining outside despite Scott’s urgings for them to “break the door down.” After a few minutes they came to the conclusion that Scott was indeed suffering from a mental illness. After about 7 minutes from their arrival, Scott opened the door holding a metal pipe.
The officers retreated from Scott and ordered him to drop the pipe, which he did. Scott was clearly disoriented. The officers ordered him to stand by the wall and asked if he had any more weapons. Scott complied and produced a knife, apologizing whilst he did so, and handed it handle-first to Huntsman without making any threatening gestures. At this point Scott informed the officers that he had paranoid schizophrenia. Scott repeatedly insisted he was not fine and requested to be put in the patrol car. The officers at this point knew that Scott was clearly distressed and qualified for a “medical hold.”
The officers then pulled Scott to the ground, while Scott yelled and struggled, he was rolled onto his stomach with his arms restrained behind his back. Then, Huntsman put his body weight on Scott’s back and neck for about 1-2 minutes while Smith put his weight on Scott’s lower body. After handcuffing and rolling him over, Scott’s face was bloody from thrashing against the ground, and he stopped yelling. He did not respond to the officers’ attempts to wake him up and was soon pronounced dead from restraint asphyxia.
Scott’s daughter sued under the Fourth Amendment for violating Scott’s right to be free from excessive force and the Fourteenth Amendment for violating her right to familial association (basically depriving her of a family member). This blog’s focus is on the Fourth Amendment.
Fourth Amendment Claim – Excessive Force
The Fourth Amendment states that police may only use force that is objectively reasonable under the circumstances. In order to decide what is “objectively reasonable” courts look to 3 different factors to see whether, from the perspective of a reasonable officer in that moment (and not using hindsight), the actions were reasonable. The 3 factors are (1) how badly did the use of force violate the Fourth Amendment (2) did the government have a good reason for using this force (for example, were the police trying to stop an active crime), and (3) a balancing act between the first two factors, namely, how badly the Fourth Amendment was violated versus how important it was that the government use that force.
Factor One: Type and amount of force used and how badly that violated the Fourth Amendment
In order to decide if the force used by the police was okay, the court looked at both the level of risk that physical contact would cause harm as well as the actual harm that was actually inflicted. Here, they found that the police officers used deadly force because bodyweight compression was applied to Scott’s back and neck for 1-2 minutes while Scott became increasingly breathless. This is in line with a prior case, Drummond ex rel. Drummond v. City of Anaheim, 343 F.3d 1052, 1056–57 (9th Cir. 2003), where officers went too far when putting their weight on someone’s neck while they were restrained on the ground.
Factor Two: Did the government have a good reason to use this force
The court here looked to, among other things, whether a crime was being committed, whether the suspect was trying to escape or resist arrest, and whether the suspect was a danger to police officers or anybody else. Espinosa v. City and County of San Francisco, 598 F.3d 528, 537 (9th Cir. 2010). The court also stated that when dealing with someone with only mental health issues, the government’s interest is going to automatically be limited because they are not dealing with a criminal. Even if the person with mental health issues is acting out.
The court found that the government did not have a good reason for using force because Scott was not suspected of committing a crime, he listened to officer instructions, and, even though he had two weapons, he did not brandish them and instantly handed them over and submitted to police control. The court also said his struggles were not considered resisting arrest because he did not threaten to or attempt to attack the police. Lastly, because the court thought less intrusive alternatives to bodyweight force were available, they did not believe the police had a good reason to use the level of force that they did.
Factor Three: Balancing Interests
Lastly, the court looks to see whether the amount of force used by the police officers was necessary. The court here quickly concludes that the bodyweight hold was not necessary because they said that deadly force is not needed to restrain a person with mental health issues so that they can be put into a mental health hold.
Because Scott’s Fourth Amendment Rights were violated, and the police officers had good reason to know that these actions would violate Scott’s rights based off of the existing caselaw, the court ultimately held that qualified immunity does not apply here.
Conclusions
Scott v. Smith imposes a regrettable restraint on first responders’ ability to act. As a result of this decision, law enforcement agencies and officers are now faced with bad choices when responding to people with mental health issues. They can attempt to restrain the subject and secure the scene and risk losing qualified immunity, or direct officers not to respond.
With qualified immunity now able to be stripped away on a case-by-case basis, agencies are understandably hesitant to secure the scene for firefighters and other first responders to do their work safely and efficiently even when there is no crime or threat of violence. Sacramento Metropolitan Fire Department spokesperson Parker Wilbourn expressed his desire for “either a legislative effort or the courts to make a decision.” Hopefully, this decision will be reversed.
