City of Escondido v. Emmons
| Decision Date | 07 January 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 17–1660.,17–1660. |
| Citation | 139 S.Ct. 500,202 L.Ed.2d 455 |
| Parties | CITY OF ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA, et al. v. Marty EMMONS. |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The question in this qualified immunity case is whether two police officers violated clearly established law when they forcibly apprehended a man at the scene of a reported domestic violence incident.
The record, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, shows the following. In April 2013, Escondido police received a 911 call from Maggie Emmons about a domestic violence incident at her apartment. Emmons lived at the apartment with her husband, her two children, and a roommate, Ametria
Douglas. Officer Jake Houchin responded to the scene and eventually helped take a domestic violence report from Emmons about injuries caused by her husband. The officers arrested her husband. He was later released.
A few weeks later, on May 27, 2013, at about 2:30 p.m., Escondido police received a 911 call about another possible domestic disturbance at Emmons' apartment. That 911 call came from Ametria
Douglas' mother, Trina Douglas. Trina Douglas was not at the apartment, but she was on the phone with her daughter Ametria, who was at the apartment. Trina heard her daughter Ametria and Maggie Emmons yelling at each other and heard her daughter screaming for help. The call then disconnected, and Trina Douglas called 911.
Officer Houchin again responded, along with Officer Robert Craig. The dispatcher informed the officers that two children could be in the residence and that calls to the apartment had gone unanswered.
Police body-camera video of the officers' actions at the apartment is in the record.
The officers knocked on the door of the apartment. No one answered. But a side window was open, and the officers spoke with Emmons through that window, attempting to convince her to open the door to the apartment so that they could conduct a welfare check. A man in the apartment also told Emmons to back away from the window, but the officers said they could not identify the man. At some point during this exchange, Sergeant Kevin Toth, Officer Joseph Leffingwell, and Officer Huy Quach arrived as backup.
A few minutes 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 Officer Craig. Officer Craig stopped the man, took him quickly to the ground, and handcuffed him. Officer Craig did not hit the man or display any weapon. The video 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, 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 and Sergeant Toth, among others, under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He raised several claims, including, as relevant here, a claim of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The suit sought money damages for which Officer Craig and Sergeant Toth would be personally liable. The District Court held that the officers had probable cause to arrest Marty Emmons for the misdemeanor offense. The Ninth Circuit did not disturb that finding, and there is no claim presently before us that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest Marty Emmons. The only claim before us is that the officers used excessive force in effectuating the arrest.
The District Court rejected the claim of excessive force. 168 F.Supp.3d 1265, 1274 (S.D.Cal.2016). The District Court stated that the "video shows that the officers acted professionally and respectfully in their encounter" at the apartment. Id ., at 1275. Because only Officer Craig used any force at all, the District Court granted summary judgment to Sergeant Toth on the excessive force claim.
Applying this Court's precedents on qualified immunity, the District Court also granted summary judgment to Officer Craig. According to the District Court, the law did not clearly establish that Officer Craig could not take down an arrestee in these circumstances. The court explained that 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. The District Court also noted 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 Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for trial on the excessive force claims against both Officer Craig and Sergeant Toth. 716 Fed.Appx. 724 (C.A.9 2018). The Ninth Circuit's entire relevant analysis of the qualified immunity question consisted of the following: Id ., at 726.
We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals as to Sergeant Toth, and vacate and remand as to Officer Craig.
With respect to Sergeant Toth, the Ninth Circuit offered no explanation for its decision. The court's unexplained reinstatement of the excessive force claim against Sergeant Toth was erroneous—and quite puzzling in light of the District Court's conclusion that "only Defendant Craig was involved in the excessive force claim" and that Emmons "fail[ed] to identify contrary evidence." 168 F.Supp.3d, at 1274, n. 4.
As to Officer Craig, the Ninth Circuit also erred. As we have explained many times: "Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Kisela v. Hughes, 584 U.S. ––––, ––––, 138 S.Ct. 1148, 1152, 200 L.Ed.2d 449 (2018) (per curiam ) (internal quotation marks omitted); see District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. ––––, –––– – ––––, 138 S.Ct. 577, 593, 199 L.Ed.2d 453 (2018) ; White v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hamen v. Hamlin Cnty.
...qualified immunity unless existing precedent squarely governs the specific facts at issue." City of Escondido, Cal. v. Emmons , ––– U.S. ––––, ––––, 139 S. Ct. 500, 503, 202 L. Ed. 2d 455 (2009) (quoting Kisela v. Hughes , ––– U.S. ––––, ––––, 138 S. Ct. 1148, 1153, 200 L. Ed. 2d 449 (2018)......
-
Bushrod v. Dist. of Columbia
...point, existing precedent must place the lawfulness of the particular action beyond debate." City of Escondido v. Emmons , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 500, 504, 202 L.Ed.2d 455 (2019) (per curiam) (cleaned up). It is "not enough that the rule is suggested by then-existing precedent." Wesby , ......
-
Sabbe v. Wash. Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs
...repeatedly cautioned courts "not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality." City of Escondido v. Emmons , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 500, 503, 202 L.Ed.2d 455 (2019) (quoting Kisela v. Hughes , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 1148, 1152, 200 L.Ed.2d 449 (2018) ). "To determi......
-
Parsons v. Velasquez
...officer took in the case's circumstances." Green v. Padilla, 484 F. Supp. 3d 1098, at 1134 (citing City of Escondido v. Emmons, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 500, 503, 202 L.Ed.2d 455 (2019) ).In the Tenth Circuit, until recently, this rule meant that a right is clearly established only when th......
-
Prisoners' Rights
...unlawful in the situation he confronted.’” (quoting Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001))); see also City of Escondido v. Emmons, 139 S. Ct. 500, 503-04 (2019) (vacating denial of qualified immunity to officer for excessive force violation because appellate court did not ask whether ......
-
Kelsay v. Ernst: in a Time of National Public Outrage Over a Lack of Police Accountability, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit's Botched Qualified Immunity Analysis Highlights Serious Problems With the Doctrine as a Whole
...on point to constitute clearly established law that governed the takedown." Id. at 980-81 (quoting City of Escondido v. Emmons, 139 S. Ct. 500, 503-04 (2019) (per curiam)) (citing Emmons v. City of Escondido, 921 F.3d 1172, 1175 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam)). [43]Id. at 981. The Eighth Circ......
-
PLAINLY INCOMPETENT: HOW QUALIFIED IMMUNITY BECAME AN EXCULPATORY DOCTRINE OF POLICE EXCESSIVE FORCE.
...(2018) (per curiam) (granting immunity to an officer who shot a mentally ill woman with a kitchen knife); City of Escondido v. Emmons, 139 S. Ct. 500, 501-04 (2019) (per curiam) (reversing lower court decision to grant immunity to an officer who forcibly took a man to the ground as he attem......
-
THE DEFENDER GENERAL.
...(2019), which dealt with the standard for First Amendment retaliatory-arrest suits against police officers; City of Escondido v. Emmons, 139 S. Ct. 500, 501 (2019) (per curiam), which addressed whether two police officers were entitled to qualified immunity from a suit alleging excessive fo......