Opinion ID: 182133
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Smith v. City of Hemet

Text: In Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), we considered a case very similar to the one now before us. As in our case, the plaintiff in Smith had pled guilty to a violation of § 148(a)(1). Police officers had responded to a domestic violence call. Smith stood on his front porch in his pajamas. He twice refused to comply with the officers' lawful orders to take his hands out of his pockets. He eventually took his hands out of his pockets, but then refused lawful orders to put his hands on his head and walk off the porch toward the officers, and to put his hands on his head and turn around. The officers then came onto the porch. They sprayed Smith in the face with pepper spray, slammed him against his front door, threw him down on the porch, and ordered a dog to bite him. Officers ordered the dog to bite Smith twice while he was still on the porch, first on the shoulder and neck and then on his left side and shoulder blade. The dog also sunk his teeth into Smith's arm. The officers then dragged Smith off the porch. Officers ordered the dog to bite Smith again, this time on his buttocks. The officers pepper sprayed Smith a total of four times. Smith sued the officers for use of excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We held that Smith's complaint was not barred by Heck. We noted that Smith violated § 148(a)(1) during two different phases. First, Smith resisted, delayed, or obstructed the officers before they came on the porch, in what we called the investigative phase. Smith, 394 F.3d at 698. Second, he resisted, delayed, or obstructed the officers when they physically arrested him. We wrote that Smith's guilty plea could properly have been based on his behavior during the first phase. In that event, a judgment in Smith's favor would not necessarily conflict with his conviction because his acts of resistance . . . would have occurred while the officers were engaged in the lawful performance of their investigative duties, not while they were engaged in effecting an arrest by the use of excessive force. Id. Because there was a factual basis for Smith's guilty plea to § 148(a)(1) that involved only lawful behavior by the police, success in Smith's § 1983 suit would  not necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction and is therefore not barred by Heck.  Id. at 699 (emphasis in original). The facts of Smith allowed us to differentiate cleanly between two phases of the encounter with the police. In the first phase, when Smith stood on his porch and refused the officers' lawful orders, he violated § 148(a)(1) by resist[ing], delay[ing], or obstruct[ing] the police in the performance of their duties. In the second phase, when the police arrested him, Smith may or may not have violated § 148(a)(1), depending on whether the police acted lawfully in effecting the arrest. We quoted the California Court of Appeal's statement in Susag v. City of Lake Forest, 94 Cal. App.4th 1401, 1409, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 269 (2002): `If the officer was not performing his or her duties at the time of the arrest, the arrest is unlawful and the arrestee cannot be convicted under Penal Code section 148, subdivision (a).' Smith, 394 F.3d at 695 (emphasis added in Smith ). Based on this understanding of California law, we wrote, Excessive force used by a police officer at the time of arrest is not within the performance of the officer's duty. Id. (emphasis in original). It is, thus, clear that if Smith pled guilty to § 148(a)(1) based on his behavior after the officers came onto the porch, during the course of the arrest, his suit would be barred by Heck.  Id. at 697 (emphasis in original). This last-quoted statement in Smith is dictum because we ultimately held that Smith's § 148(a)(1) conviction could have been based on his conduct prior to the arrest phase. However, if this statement was based on a correct understanding of § 148(a)(1), Hooper's excessive force claims are barred under Heck, for in Hooper's case, unlike in Smith's, there were no distinct phases. Rather, Hooper's arrest was effectuated in a single continuous chain of events lasting a very brief time. However, a subsequent decision by the California Supreme Court makes clear that our dictum in Smith was based on a misunderstanding of § 148(a)(1).