Opinion ID: 682140
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Reasonableness of Defendant Officers' Conduct

Text: 12 The reasonableness [inquiry] must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight [and] [t]he calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgment--in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.... Hopkins, 958 F.2d at 885 (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396-97 (1989)). The court should consider whether the totality of the circumstances justifies the force used, examining particularly the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. Mendoza, 27 F.3d at 1362 (internal quotations omitted). 13
14 Under the totality of the circumstances a reasonable officer could conclude the forced used by Deputy Lauterbach was lawful. Deputy Lauterbach approached a vehicle whose occupants had just fled from another police officer's lawful stop. When Babcock refused to provide identification or exit the truck, it would not be unreasonable for an officer to use minimal force to remove the resisting suspect from the vehicle in order to complete the arrest and control the situation. There is no indication Deputy Lauterbach used more force than necessary in removing Babcock from the truck and effecting the arrest. See, e.g., Mendoza, 27 F.3d at 1362-63; White v. Pierce County, 797 F.2d 812, 816 (9th Cir.1986). The district court's denial of Deputy Lauterbach's motion for summary judgment on Babcock's 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 claim is reversed. 15
16 The force used by Officer Fujino during the arrest varies from Deputy Lauterbach's conduct in one very significant respect: Officer Fujino allegedly applied a choke hold, squeezing Babcock's throat until Babcock lost consciousness. A choke hold can cause serious bodily injury or even death. See Maddox v. City of Los Angeles, 792 F.2d 1408, 1411 (9th Cir.1986) (officer's application of choke hold for 20 to 30 seconds caused suspect's death). Officer Fujino maintains this use of force was an objectively justifiable response to Babcock's admitted resistance to Deputy Lauterbach's arm hold. However, [t]he force which was applied must be balanced against the need for that force.... Alexander v. City and County of San Francisco, 29 F.3d 1355, 1367 (9th Cir.1994); see also Chew v. Gates, 27 F.3d 1432, 1441-42 (9th Cir.1994). Based on the evidence presented at the motion for summary judgment we are unable to conclude as a matter of law that the forced used by Officer Fujino was objectively reasonable. 17 Although Babcock was fleeing a lawful stop, the only crime involved was a misdemeanor. While a reasonable officer might be wary of Babcock's refusal to provide identification or exit the truck, these actions were passive, justifying only the use of minimal force to carry out Babcock's arrest. Babcock's active resistance began after the officers had gained physical control over him; there is no suggestion in the record that the officers were in danger, or Babcock's resistance was more than a futile protest against Deputy Lauterbach's arm hold. Whether Babcock posed a safety threat to the officers, is a factual question which makes summary judgment inappropriate. See Alexander, 29 F.3d at 1366-67. The district court's order denying Officer Fujino's motion for summary judgment is affirmed. 18