Couple shot by deputies can recover damages, 9th Circuit panel rules

A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel reaffirmed Friday that a couple shot by Los Angeles Sheriff's Department deputies during a warrantless entry can recover damages.

The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the court used it to undermine the "provocation" rule in excessive force jurisprudence.

On remand, however, the 9th Circuit again found Angel and Jennifer Mendez are owed damages. In 2010, the couple was asleep in a shed behind a house in Lancaster when two deputies came onto the property and entered unannounced while searching for a suspect. Mendez v. County of Los Angeles, 2018 DJDAR 7397.

Angel Mendez was awakened and moved a pellet gun that was on the bed. The deputies fired at least 15 shots, believing they were acting in self defense. Both he and his now wife were wounded, with Angel Mendez losing a leg. Jennifer Mendez was seven months pregnant.

The couple sued in the U.S. Central District of California, claiming the warrantless, unannounced search violated their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald ruled in their favor in 2013.

While the deputies' use of force when they saw Mendez with what appeared to be a gun was reasonable, Fitzgerald ruled they erred in recklessly engaging in a constitutional violation and "provoking" a violent response from a plaintiff who also had reasonable fears about his safety at the time.

He awarded them $4.1 million, later affirmed by the 9th Circuit. The latest ruling affirms the couple's right to collect damages.

"We're very pleased that the 9th Circuit held the defendant police officers responsible for the tremendous harm they did to the Mendezes," said Leonard J. Feldman, the couple's lead attorney.

"They have suffered greatly," added the Peterson Wampold Rosato Feldman Luna PWRFL partner. "Angel Mendez was a laborer, and now he's lacking the bottom half of one of his legs, which makes it impossible for him to work."

The lead attorney for Los Angeles County, Melinda Cantrall, did not reply to a call and email seeking comment. Cantrall is a senior partner with Hurrell Cantrall LLP in Los Angeles.

But it was Cantrall who won at the U.S. Supreme Court. In May 2017, the court ruled 8-0 that the "provocation doctrine" cited by the lower courts was "incompatible with our excessive force jurisprudence." The decision by Justice Samuel Alito found the constitutional violation could not be used to "manufacture" an excessive force claim that would have otherwise been barred.

On remand, the 9th Circuit found that even without citing provocation, "officers' unlawful behavior was a proximate cause of the Mendezes' injuries."

"The officers' argument misconstrues the duty not to enter a home without a warrant as a duty simply to get a warrant -- overlooking the fact that absent a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances, there is a duty not to enter," wrote Judge Ronald M. Gould.

The court found the deputies' conduct was the "proximate cause" of the couple's injuries, in that it was "closely enough tied to the injury" in order to hold them responsible. Under California law, it went on, the entry was "reckless as a matter of tort law" to a degree that is was "beyond negligent."