California attorneys win unanimous high court immunity ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reinforced law officers' qualified immunity rights in an Alameda County case Monday, reversing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The high court rejected the circuit court's finding that existing precedent put the officer on notice that placing his knee on the plaintiff's back constituted excessive force and ruled that the facts in both cases, the lawsuit and a Riverside County case used as precedent, were materially distinguishable. Daniel Rivas-Villegas v. Ramon Cortesluna, 2021 DJDAR 10816 (U.S. Oct. 18, 2021).

"The ruling is a great decision supporting the rule of law in particular on the facts and circumstances that confronted the peace officers here and it provides some certainty to officers in a situation that can literally occur thousands of times a day -- restraining an individual during the handcuffing process and taking them into custody," James R. Touchstone of Jones & Mayer, who represented several law enforcement associations in an amicus brief filed in support of Union City Police Officer Daniel Rivas-Villegas.

Touchstone added, "This decision was particularly important to essentially demonstrate that the law permits officers to engage in that behavior, particularly when a suspect is armed, in order to facilitate taking that suspect safely into custody."

The circuit opinion sided with plaintiff Ramon Cortesluna, who alleged Rivas-Villegas had committed excessive use of force under federal law by putting his knee on Cortesluna's back while arresting him following a domestic disturbance call.

Timothy T. Coates, a partner at Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP, successfully argued the appeal before the Supreme Court, and filed the writ for certiorari along with Kevin P. Allen of Allen, Glaessner, Hazelwood and Werth LLP. The attorneys forwarded requests for comment to Union City officials, who did not respond to requests for comment by press time.

Cortesluna was represented at the high court by Robert G. Howie Jr., partner at Howie & Smith LLP in San Francisco.

The circuit court had cited an excessive force case out of Riverside County, in which a man had been arrested and an officer had deliberately dug his knee into his back causing long- term if not permanent back injury in making its ruling. LaLonde v. County of Riverside, 204 F. 3d 947 (9th Cir. Feb. 25, 2000).

"Neither Cortesluna nor the Court of Appeals identified any Supreme Court case that addresses facts like the ones at issue here," stated the Supreme Court's unsigned opinion. "Instead, the Court of Appeals relied solely on its precedent in LaLonde. Even assuming that circuit precedent can clearly establish law for purposes of §1983, LaLonde is materially distinguishable and thus does not govern the facts of this case. ... He is thus entitled to qualified immunity."

The Supreme Court said the officers in the Cortesluna case had responded to a more volatile situation than in LaLonde.

"In LaLonde officers were responding to a mere noise complaint, whereas here they were responding to a serious alleged incident of domestic violence possibly involving a chainsaw. In addition, LaLonde was unarmed. Cortesluna, in contrast, had a knife protruding from his left pocket," the Supreme Court wrote.

Howie, in his briefing to the Supreme Court, contended Cortesluna did not resist and by placing his knee on an unresisting suspect, Rivas-Villegas committed an abuse of force.

On Monday, Howie said his client was completely passive during the arrest, which was caught on the home's security cameras, and there was no chain saw involved in the incident even though the 911 call to the police mentioned one.

"The variability of these encounters makes a 'rule' especially difficult to articulate," Howie said. "The concept that municipalities are protected from civil liability based on the standard of a police officer's knowledge of constitutional limits set by prior defining cases involving specific fact situations is a problematic solution for a rule on its face."

Howie said he believes this decision will not affect other cases aside from making it harder to get civil recoveries in use of force cases.

He added the only way for qualified immunity to change is for the state Legislature to intervene, but doubted this particular case would move lawmakers.

Civil rights attorney DeWitt M. Lacy of the Law Office of John L. Burris, who has litigated wrongful death and police misconduct lawsuits against police departments, said what is interesting about the ruling is that the Supreme Court is suggesting that only Supreme Court cases can be used to determine whether qualified immunity applies.

"That really narrows the focus of what issues have actually been decided by the court," Lacy said in an interview. "Civil rights attorneys will use the 9th Circuit cases as well settled law .., but here what the court says is, 'Even assuming that circuit precedent can clearly establish law for purposes of §1983, LaLonde is materially distinguishable and thus does not govern the facts of this case.'"

"It doesn't specifically say that we can only look to Supreme Court cases to determine whether or not qualified immunity should apply, but if that's what they're insinuating, if that's the direction they're going, then that means that the only cases that can put officers on notice are Supreme Court cases and it has to be particularly similar to the cases that was before the Supreme Court," he added.

Lacy said he is concerned about the court's stance on qualified immunity because it seems the court is suggesting that qualified immunity should be expanded, which is the opposite of what some justices' have indicated.

Justice Clarence Thomas in 2017 and 2020 in dissenting opinions suggested qualified immunity should be reconsidered since it has no legal basis.

"I continue to have strong doubts about our §1983 qualified immunity doctrine," Thomas wrote in Alexander L. Baxter v. Brad Bracey et al., 2020 DJDAR 5858 (U.S. June 15, 2020).