COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. ANGEL MENDEZ, ET AL.
Supreme Court of the United States, Alito, May 30, 2017,
Reasonable Force- The reasonableness of a law-enforcement use of force does not depend on the existence or absence of a previous 4th Amendment violation

Facts:
In 2010, LA County deputies had a felony arrest warrant for an at-large parolee. The deputies got word from an informant that the suspect was at a particular home, so they decided to head there with several officers. A briefing was held prior to heading to the home where it was stated that a man named Angel Mendez lived in a shack behind the house along with a pregnant woman.
As deputies and a sergeant approached the front of the house in order to try for a knock-and-talk, two deputies circled around to the back.
The deputies saw a shack behind the house closed off by a blanket. Mendez and the pregnant woman were asleep inside. When the deputies pulled back the blanket and entered, Mendez stood up and grabbed a bb-rifle.
Both officers fired, striking both Mendez and the pregnant woman multiple times.
Mendez sued the County of Los Angeles, claiming that: 1) the entry into his home was illegal, 2) it was illegal for the deputies to enter without knocking and announcing their presence, and 3) the deputies used excessive force.
The trial court agreed that the entry was illegal, but only awarded “nominal” damages.
The trial court held that the officer’s use of force was reasonable under Graham v. Connor.
However, the 9th Circuit (The federal appeals court handling cases from the west coast, including California) had a rule in place that police use of force (even otherwise reasonable/legal use of force) is automatically unreasonable/illegal if (1) the officer intentionally or recklessly provoked a violent response by (2) committing a separate constitutional violation (such as an illegal search/seizure).
Because of the 9th Circuit rule, the trial court found that the deputies used excessive force and awarded Mendez apx. $4 million in damages.
On appeal, the 9th Circuit agreed with Mendez and the trial court that the officer’s use of force was excessive (even though it was reasonable) because it was a result of the deputies’ illegal entry into Mendez’ home.
The County of Los Angeles requested review from the Supreme Court, arguing that the 9th Circuit’s excessive force test did not follow prior Supreme Court rulings.

Held: The Supreme Court agreed with Los Angeles. The “Graham Test” is the only test for excessive force. If there is no excessive force claim under Graham, there is no excessive force claim at all. However, on re-trial Mendez can argue that the shooting was a result of the unlawful entry.

Excessive Force- An excessive force claim is a claim that a law enforcement officer carried out an unreasonable seizure through a use of force that was not justified under the relevant circumstances.

Excessive Force- Excessive force is not a claim that an officer used reasonable force after committing a distinct Fourth Amendment violation such as an unreasonable entry.

Excessive Force- The test for excessive force was set out by the Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor. In that case, it held that “all claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force — deadly or not — in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of a free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its “reasonableness” standard.

Reasonable Force- “The right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it.”

Reasonable Force- “Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge’s chambers,” violates the Fourth Amendment. Reasonableness must allow for the fact that police officers are “often forced to make split-second judgments — in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving — about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.”

Reasonable Force – Graham Factors:
– How serious is the crime at issue?
– Does the suspect pose an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others?
– Is the suspect actively resisting arrest?
– Is the suspect attempting to evade arrest by flight?

Constitutional Torts:
Constitutional Torts- plaintiffs can generally recover damages reasonably related to a Fourth Amendment violation (subject to qualified immunity).

From the case: “[I]f the plaintiffs in this case cannot recover on their excessive force claim, that will not foreclose recovery for injuries proximately caused by the warrantless entry.” “On remand, the court should revisit the question whether proximate cause permits [Mendez] to recover damages for their shooting injuries based on the deputies’ failure to secure a warrant at the outset.”