Opinion ID: 6318081
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Readily Available Alternatives

Text: Plaintiffs argue that “Johns failed to use readily available alternatives to avoid the encounter with [Palma] and avoid shooting and killing him.” (Pls.’ Br. at 8.) Specifically, they argue that Johns had the opportunity to use less than lethal force—his baton—and that Johns could have easily removed himself from the situation. Generally, an officer is not precluded from using deadly force even if his own “poor planning or bad tactics” unnecessarily escalated the situation. Reich, 945 F.3d at 978 (citing Livermore, 476 F.3d at 407). However, “[s]ometimes, the time or space available to an officer may mean that the reasonable thing to do is monitor the suspect, issue a warning, or take cover.” Thomas, 854 F.3d at 366–67 (citing Dickerson, 101 F.3d at 1163); see also Mitchell, 864 F.3d at 423 (indicating that failure to use alternatives—if officers had the time and opportunity to use them—may render use of deadly force unreasonable); Gaddis, 364 F.3d at 784 (Clay, J., dissenting) (finding use of lethal force likely unreasonable when officers failed to use “tactically more appropriate” measures first). This factor is particularly important in cases involving mental health crises, where officers should use the least force necessary to subdue the person. See Estate of Hill, 853 F.3d at 313–14. As the Third Circuit has stated: Depending on the severity and immediacy of the threat and any potential risk to public safety posed by an officer’s delayed action, it may be appropriate for an officer to retreat or await backup when encountering a mentally disturbed individual. It may also be appropriate for the officer to attempt to de-escalate an encounter to eliminate the need for force or to reduce the amount of force necessary to control an individual. Johnson, 837 F.3d at 353 (citing Martin, 712 F.3d at 958). When Johns arrived on the scene, the threat of the unwanted person was neither severe nor immediate. See id. While Johns apparently thought that he was walking into a volatile situation—so much so that he preemptively unholstered his gun while driving to the scene—this akin to those involving an armed mentally ill person. Similarly, in Simmonds, 682 F.3d at 445, we affirmed the district court’s decision finding that the officers had qualified immunity after they shot and killed a mentally ill man because officers had ample reason to believe the man was armed: he was threatening to kill his family members, his family told officers he owned multiple guns, the man shouted “I have a gun,” and the man pulled out a “silver object” and pointed it towards officers. Although the man in Simmonds was actually unarmed, officers had every reason to believe he had a gun. See id. No. 21-3315 Palma, et al. v. Johns, et al. Page 25 was hardly the scene he found when he arrived. By that time, Palma was already outside of the home and isolated from the rest of his family. According to the dissent, the situation on the scene was so dire that any failure to intervene or await backup would have amounted to a “dereliction of duty.” (Infra Dissent at 44.) In its view, had Johns not taken immediate action, he would have been “leaving the family to fend for themselves” against “an unwelcome intruder.” (Id.) This was hardly the case. When Johns pulled into the driveway, he saw Palma standing alone on the front porch with his hood up and his hands in his pockets. With Palma—the unwanted person—already having departed from the house, no one was in immediate danger and Johns had time to further assess the scene. It must be remembered that the police were called to the scene only because of a family dispute over a TV remote control. Johns should have waited for backup before engaging with a mentally ill man who posed no immediate threat to anyone. Even after engaging with Palma, Johns still could not use force that was “grossly disproportionate to the need.” Martin, 712 F.3d at 961 (quoting Simpson v. Hines, 903 F.2d 400, 401 (5th Cir. 1990)). After tasing Palma, Johns had the opportunity to subdue him using other, non-lethal methods such as handcuffs or his baton. Indeed, Johns pulled out his baton, extended it, and raised it above his head ready to strike Palma. Ultimately, Johns abandoned any attempt to use the baton after Palma turned back towards Johns. If an officer reasonably unholsters his gun during an encounter, it may be unreasonable to expect him to swap out the gun for a less lethal tool. See Mitchell, 864 F.3d at 423. But the opposite happened here; Johns unholstered his gun even though a less deadly alternative was already in his hands. Furthermore, if the entire encounter lasted eight to ten minutes, Johns may have been able to safely pursue other options such as getting into his patrol car and awaiting backup.