U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit
Mar. 4, 2016
Deputies who shot two homeless people not entitled to immunity, 9th Circuit rules
Two Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputies who conducted a warrantless search of a backyard shack and shot a homeless couple who were living inside are not entitled to qualified immunity, a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel held Wednesday.
Daily Journal Staff Writer
Two Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputies who conducted a warrantless search of a backyard shack and shot a homeless couple who were living inside are not entitled to qualified immunity, a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel held Wednesday.
The two deputies were reckless and violated the pair's clearly-established Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure, according to the unanimous three-judge panel. It largely upheld a district court ruling and kept in place a $4 million payout to the couple. Mendez v. County of Los Angeles, 2016 DJDAR 2143.
The shooting occurred after the two deputies were asked to assist in the search for a parole violator who had been reported to be riding a bike in front of the home of Paula Hughes. The two shooting victims, Angel and Jennifer Mendez, were living in a shack in Hughes' back yard with her permission.
While other officers went to Hughes' front door, the two officers subject to the suit entered her back yard. They opened the shack door and opened fire when they saw Angel Mendez holding a BB gun.
Mendez, who used the BB gun to shoot rats that entered the shack, was not threatening the officers, but was moving the gun out of the way as he sat up, according to the opinion. Jennifer Mendez was shot in the back and Angel Mendez had to have his lower leg amputated as a result of the shooting.
"The deputies first argue that they did not 'search' the shack within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when Conley opened the door," wrote Ronald M. Gould in the opinion.
"In 2010, the law was clearly established that a 'search' under the Fourth Amendment occurs when the government invades an area in which a person has a 'reasonable expectation of privacy.' ... This includes the 'area immediately adjacent to a home,'" he added.
He was joined by Judge Marsha S. Berzon and Senior U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh of the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
The panel rejected several arguments the deputies offered to justify their actions, finding among other things that they were not in "hot pursuit" of a suspect and had no justifiable reason to fear for their immediate safety.
Melinda Cantrall of Hurrell Cantrall LLP, who represented the officers, did not respond to a request for comment. Attorney David Drexler, who represented the victims, also did not respond to a request for comment.
Fiona Smith
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com