Ninth Circuit: The First Amendment Forbids City From Prohibiting Police Officers From Criticizing Police Department Or City

On September 5^th 2018, the Ninth Circuit found that a “Last Chance Agreement” restricting an employee’s negative comments about the police department, the city, or its employees, was an unconstitutional restraint on free speech.

In Barone v. City ofSpringfield, a victim advocate and a police department liaison to the city’s minority communities was investigated for two incidents. The first incident involved a tour during which students took photographs in restricted areas. The second incident involved a message left with dispatchers about a potential crime. After the investigation, the Officer was suspended for four weeks and placed on administrative leave. In order to return to work, she was presented with a mandatory Last Chance Agreement (“LCA”).  She refused to sign it “because it prohibited her from reporting on racial profiling and discrimination.”

After her refusal, the police chief provided her with an amended LCA. The amended agreement barred her from saying or writing anything negative about the department, the city, or their employees—although she could report complaints involving discrimination or profiling by the department. The amended LCA also said she would remain subject to a generally applicable order that barred her from publicly criticizing or ridiculing the department. She refused to sign this agreement as well and was subsequently terminated. She filed suit alleging, among other things, that the LCA violated her First Amendment rights.

The Ninth Circuit agreed that the amended LCA violated her constitutional rights. The Court specifically found that the Department’s concerns about potential disruptive speech were unconvincing. The Court concluded that the city needed evidence of past disruption or evidence that the anticipated harm is “real, not merely conjectural.” Without such evidence, the LCA unconstitutionally restrained Barone’s speech as a private citizen on matters of public concern.

Federal Court Confirms Officer’s Use of Deadly Force Justified in Order to Prevent Escape

A recently published federal court case underlines that if officers have probable cause to believe a suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm to themselves or others, they are justified in using deadly force to prevent escape. A warning is only required if feasible.

In Horton v. Pobjecky (2018), an unarmed off-duty police officer was waiting for food in a  pizzeria. The officer—Frank Pobjecky, was sitting in the break area with the restaurant manager—Vincenzo Tarara. Suddenly, four young men entered the front door. One of the men held a revolver. Two of the men entered the break room while a third went around the counter toward the cash register. The fourth man, Michael Sago (“Sago”), acted as a lookout. Sago stood in the entrance holding the front door open.

One of the men pointed a gun at Tarara and demanded money. Tarara told him to get out of his restaurant. Tarra then slamed the man against a cooler and reached for the man’s gun. While Tarara and the man struggled for control of the gun, Pobjecky, who knew that Tarara carried a concealed handgun on his hip under his shirt, grabbed Tarara’s gun.

Sago approached the break area. As he approached, Pobjecky gained possession of Tarara’s gun. Simultaneously, Tarara won the struggle for the other gun.  Pobjecky began shooting. He never identified himself as a police officer or gave any verbal warnings or commands.

With Tarara’s gun, Pobjecky engaged each suspect as they moved around the restaurant. Pobjecky shot and wounded all three men. Sago was shot three times from behind in the lower back as he crawled away toward the door. After Sago crawled out of the restaurant, Pobjecky locked the front door and called 911. Approximately 11 minutes later paramedics arrived. Sago died shortly thereafter.
James Horton, representing Sago’s estate, sued Pobjecky alleging that he used excessive force and failed to provide medical care in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

In dismissing Horton’s case, the Court noted that as long as the assailants were moving inside the pizzeria, they posed a threat. The Court ruled that given the circumstances no reasonable juror could conclude that he should have stopped to identify himself as a police officer or warn each assailants before defending himself.

As to the failure to provide medical care, the Court ruled that it was “unreasonable to demand Pobjecky venture into the night with an empty gun, risking further onslaught, braving the hazards [Sago] and the other assailants created, to administer treatment to [Sago]”

Supreme Court Clarifies Qualified Immunity Applies to Use of Force When Protecting Third Parties

 On April 2, 2018, the United States Supreme Court clarified that peace officers are permitted to use deadly force in order to protect third parties.

In Kisela v. Hughes, three Tucson, Arizona police officers responded to reports of a woman hacking at a tree with a kitchen knife and acting erratically. Upon arriving on the scene, the officers spotted a woman, later identified as Sharon Chadwick, standing in the driveway of a nearby house. A chain-link fence separated Chadwick from the three officers.

Amy Hughes came out of that same house carrying a large knife at her side. She matched the description of the woman who had been seen hacking a tree. Hughes walked toward Chadwick. She stopped no more than six feet from her.

All three officers drew their guns. At least twice they told Hughes to drop the knife. Chadwick said “take it easy” to both Hughes and the three officers. Although Hughes appeared calm, she failed to acknowledge the officers’ presence or drop the knife.

The top bar of the chain-link fence blocked Officer Kisela’s line of fire. He dropped to the ground and shot Hughes four times through the fence. Less than a minute transpired from the moment the officers saw Chadwick to the moment Kisela fired shots.

All three officers jumped the fence, handcuffed Hughes, and called paramedics—who transported her to a hospital. At the hospital, she was treated for non-life-threatening injuries.  Afterwards, Hughes sued Officer Kisela under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, alleging excessive force in violation of her constitutional rights.

While underscoring the need for officers to make spit-second decisions, the Court declined to engage in the second-guessing of officers on the scene. The Court specifically noted that although the officers themselves were in no apparent danger, all three of the officers said at the time of the shooting they subjectively believed Hughes to be a threat to Chadwick. To that end, Officer Kisela was entitled to the defense of qualified immunity

This is an important case for California peace officers. It underscores that officers are entitled to qualified immunity when utilizing deadly force in order to protect third-parties.  

Ninth Circuit Clarifies Standards for Reasonable Force

In Lowry v. City of San Diego, the Ninth Circuit clarified some of the standards for determining the reasonableness of the force used. In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit held a reasonable jury could find the San Diego Police Department’s (“SFPD”) K9 “bite and hold” policy was a severe use of force.  

After a night of drinking with her friends, the plaintiff, Sara Lowry, returned to her workplace and fell asleep on her office couch. Lowry unknowingly triggered the building’s burglar alarm when she got up to use the restroom.

SFPD were called to investigate. Sgt. Bill Nulton and his police dog, Bak, along with two other officers, found the door to Lowry’s office suite open. Sgt. Nulton yelled, “This is the San Diego Police Department! Come out now or I’m sending in a police dog! You may be bitten!” Nulton waited 30-60 seconds, but received no response. He repeated the warnings, but eventually released Bak “off lead” (without a leash). Bak made her way to Lowry’s office and bit Lowry’s lip. Nulton immediately commanded the dog to release her hold.

Lowry brought a § 1983 action against the City, alleging the City’s policy of training its police dogs to bite and hold resulted in a violation of her Forth Amendment rights.  According to the Ninth Circuit, a court must consider both the type of force used and the potential harm it may cause. The district court erred in only considering Lowry’s actual harm rather than the potential harm the K9 could inflict. As Sgt. Nulton told Lowry after the incident, “I just can’t believe that’s the only damage. You’re very lucky. She could have ripped your face off.”

The Ninth Circuit also considered whether other tactics would be appropriate in the circumstances. The court believed Sgt. Nulton could have kept Bak on lead to maintain control. While the court did find Nulton’s multiple warnings were helpful in showing the force was reasonable, it was only minimally so because Lowry did not hear the commands.

Law enforcement agencies may look to the Lowry decision when determining whether an officer used reasonable force in a disciplinary case.

U.S. Supreme Court: Demotion of Police Officer for Perceived Political Activity Violated First Amendment

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a government employer violates the First Amendment when it demotes an employee for what it perceives as political activity, even if it is mistaken. A government employer cannot punish an employee for participating in political activity protected by the First Amendment.

In 2005, Jeffrey Heffernan was a police officer in Paterson, New Jersey. At that time, the city mayor was running for re-election against Lawrence Spagnola, a personal friend of Heffernan. The Police Chief and Heffernan's direct supervisor had both been appointed by the current mayor.

During the campaign, Heffernan's mother, who was bedridden, asked him to pick up a large Spagnola sign for her to replace one that had been stolen from her yard. Heffernan went to a Spagnola campaign office and picked up the sign. While there, he spoke for a time to Spagnola's campaign staff. Other members of the police force saw him holding the sign and talking to campaign staff.

The next day, Heffernan's supervisors demoted him from detective to patrol officer. They did this to punish Heffernan for what they thought was his overt involvement in Spagnola's campaign. However, he was not actually involved in the campaign. His supervisors had made a factual mistake.

Heffernan then filed a federal lawsuit against the city for violating his First Amendment rights. The city attempted to defeat his lawsuit by pointing to its factual mistake. It argued that because Heffernan was not actually involved in any political activity, it did not violate his constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court ruled in Jefferson v. City of Paterson (2016) that the city's reason for demoting Heffernan is what matters. Even though Heffernan was not actually involved in any political activity, the city could not punish him for what it wrongly believed to be political activity. And Heffernan actually suffered harm because the city demoted him. That was enough to bring a First Amendment lawsuit. Also, allowing the city to escape liability in this case would likely discourage other employees from actually engaging in political activity.

Thus, a government employer cannot punish an employee for what it believes to be the employee's political activity. This is true even if it is mistaken and the employee has not actually engaged in protected First Amendment activity.

Supreme Court Shoots Down Excessive Force Case

On November 9, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that qualified immunity protected a state trooper who shot and killed a dangerous driver in Mullenix v. Luna.

On March 23, 2010, Sergeant Randy Baker of the Texas Police Department followed Israel Leija to a drive-in restaurant with a warrant for his arrest. When Sergeant Baker approached Leija's vehicle and told him he was under arrest, Leija sped off and a high speed chase ensued. During the case, Leija called dispatch and threatened to shoot any officer he saw if they did not abandon pursuit. Leija was also intoxicated.

State Trooper Chandrin Mullenix also responded to the call. While other officers set up three sets of spike strips in hopes of disabling Leija's vehicle, Mullenix called dispatch to propose shooting to stop Leija's car. Mullenix's supervisor instructed him to "stand by" and "see if the spike strips worked first." However, it was unclear whether Mullenix heard his supervisor's command.

Once Mullenix spotted Leija's vehicle coming up the overpass, Mullenix fired six shots. Four bullets hit Leija in his upper body, killing him.

The issue for the Court was whether Mullenix violated clearly established law. Qualified immunity protects "all but the plainly incompetent and those who knowingly violate the law." The Court found no clearly established law barred Mullenix from claiming qualified immunity. As such, Mullenix was entitled to summary judgment against plaintiffs' claim of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

In the sole dissent, Justice Sotomayor argued Mullenix should have waited to see if the spike strips worked before shooting. The majority of the Court was not persuaded. The Court emphasized that spike strips don't always work and officers manning those strips are vulnerable to gunfire. According to the majority, Sotomayor's reasoning was in error. Namely, it is not for the courts to decide whether an officer should use one tactic over another.

Although the Court refrained from considering what tactics and officer should use, many agencies' use of force policies do. Some agencies are now moving toward banning the practice of shooting at cars to disable the vehicle. In such cases, an officer may be immune from civil liability, but can still be punished by the department for insubordination or violation of policy.

Ninth Circuit's Opinion Granting Distress Damages in Officer-Involved Shootings Stands

On October 6, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review of the City's appeal of Chaudhry v. City of Los Angeles. This upholds the Ninth Circuit's ruling allowing pre-death pain and suffering damages in section 1983 claims when the death was caused by a violation of federal law.

In Chaudhry, a jury found a police officer's shooting was unjustified despite the officer testifying the suspect lunged at him with a knife. The jury awarded $700,000 to the suspect's family for wrongful death and $1 million to the suspect's estate for pain and suffering based on an excessive force claim under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. California law prevents a decedent's estate from recovering damages for the decedent's pre-death pain and suffering. Federal law is silent on the issue.

The Ninth Circuit found California's limitation on damages conflicted with section 1983's goals of compensation and deterrence. The Ninth Circuit ruled preventing pre-death pain and suffering damages to a decedent's estate makes it more economically advantageous for the defendant to kill rather than injure. The court held the state-law limitation on damages does not apply in section 1983 claims if the death was caused by a violation of federal law. This ruling greatly increases potential liability for section 1983 defendants.

9th Circuit: Assistant Chief Personally Liable for Retaliation

In Martha Karl v. City of Mountlake Terrace (9th Cir. May 8, 2012) No.11-35343, the federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled "it was clearly established ... that a supervisor cannot retaliate against a public employee for his or her subpoenaed deposition testimony offered as a citizen in the context of a civil rights lawsuit."  As a result, the court held the local assistant chief of police could be personally liable for retaliation and is not entitled to qualified immunity.

The case started when a peace officer sued the city, alleging he was fired for being outspoken about the war on drugs.  Martha Karl was called as a witness in the officer's lawsuit and testified at a deposition that the assistant chief wanted to terminate the officer because of his political opinions and that the assistant chief "had a reputation as a 'smooth talker' and a “'back stabber.'”  When the assistant chief found out what Karl said, he told others she couldn't be trusted and that he would find a way to get rid of her.

According the court, the evidence showed the assistant chief had Karl transferred to a new position and set her up to fail during her probation period.  He then had her fired.  She sued for retaliation, naming the city and the assistant chief personally.

The court ruled the assistant chief was not entitled to qualified immunity, meaning he could be sued in his personal capacity.  Qualified immunity is the principle that protects peace officers from personal liability in federal civil rights cases unless their conduct clearly violates established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.  Here, the court decided it was clearly established that law enforcement supervisors cannot retaliate against employees called as witnesses in civil rights cases on account of their testimony and the assistant chief should have known that.

Court Allows Civil Rights Suit to Proceed Against Police Officer Who Calibrated Intoxilyzer Machine

In Molina-Aviles v. District of Columbia (D.D.C., November 14, 2011) 2011 WL 5517044, a federal judge in Washington, D.C. denied a motion to dismiss brought by a police officer accused of failing to properly calibrate an Intoxilyzer 5000EN machine.  The plaintiffs, several DUI defendants, claim the machine generated readings approximately 30% higher than a person's actual blood alcohol level and sued the officer in his personal capacity.  The court let the suit proceed against the officer personally because the plaintiffs alleged the officer knew his calibration methods were faulty, but continued to use them.  

Court Reaffirms Peace Officers' Constitutionally-Protected Right to Privacy While Partially Undressed

Following the Ninth Circuit, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found a female deputy sheriff had a reasonable expectation of privacy while partially undressed and undergoing a decontamination process.  Doe, a deputy sheriff in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania was surreptitiously filmed by a male officer while undergoing decontamination. The male officer uploaded the video onto his work computer and called several officers into his office to view the footage.   He then put in on a county-wide server.  Doe filed a 1983 action against the county and the officer, alleging violations of her right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment and her right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment.

The trial court granted the county's motion for summary judgment. The Third Circuit reversed on the Fourteenth Amendment claim and affirmed on the search and seizure claim.  After looking to other circuits, the court concluded a deputy sheriff has a constitutionally-protected privacy interest in his/her partially clothed body. The court noted:

Although the issue of whether one may have a constitutionally protected privacy interest in his or her partially clothed body is a matter of first impression in this circuit, other circuits—including the Second, Sixth and Ninth Circuits—have held that such a right exists. See, e.g., Poe v. Leonard, 282 F.3d 123, 136–39 (2d Cir.2002) (finding that plaintiff, a female civilian who was participating in a police training video, alleged sufficient facts to raise a triable issue of whether her constitutional right to privacy was violated where the male police officer surreptitiously filmed her in the dressing room while topless and without a bra); York v. Story, 324 F.2d 450, 454–56 (9th Cir.1963) (finding that the plaintiff properly stated a claim for a violation of her constitutional right to privacy where she alleged that, while reporting a sexual assault, a male police officer deceived her into permitting him to photograph her genitals and exposed breasts under the pretext of an investigation), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 939, 84 S.Ct. 794, 11 L.Ed.2d 659 (1964); Brannum v. Overton Cnty. Sch. Bd., 516 F.3d 489, 497–98 (6th Cir.2008) (finding a privacy violation where a middle school's surveillance cameras recorded the plaintiff students in their undergarments while in the school locker room)
(Doe v. Luzerne County (3d Cir., Oct. 12, 2011, 10-3921) 2011 WL 4823387.)

The court concluded the male deputy’s filming did not implicate the Fourth Amendment because it was conducted for personal reasons.