Opinion ID: 4580945
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Officer Leon

Text: Plaintiff asserts that Leon violated the Fourth Amendment by shooting him twice with a beanbag shotgun. Even taking Plaintiff’s version of the facts as true, as we must at this stage, a reasonable jury would not find a Fourth Amendment violation, because Leon’s acts were objectively reasonable in the circumstances. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Leon. The reasonableness of an officer’s use of force “traditionally is a question of fact for the jury.” Scott, 39 F.3d at 915. Nevertheless, we may depart from that traditional rule if any reasonable juror would find that the use of force was “objectively reasonable under the circumstances.” Id. As to the personal intrusion, because beanbag rounds are “potentially lethal at thirty feet and could be lethal at distances up to fifty feet,” they are “not to be deployed lightly.” Deorle, 272 F.3d at 1279–80. Their use “is permissible only when a strong governmental interest compels the employment of such force.” Id. at 1280. In 4 An exception exists for “the rare ‘obvious case,’ where the unlawfulness of the officer’s conduct is sufficiently clear even though existing precedent does not address similar circumstances.” District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 590 (2018) (quoting Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 199 (2004) (per curiam)). That exception does not apply here. CORTESLUNA V. LEON 13 assessing the governmental interest, we consider “(1) ‘whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others,’ (2) ‘the severity of the crime at issue,’ and (3) ‘whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.’” Glenn v. Washington Cty., 673 F.3d 864, 872 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Graham, 490 U.S. at 396)). Here, first, the alleged crime was severe: a twelve-yearold girl told a 911 dispatcher that Plaintiff had threatened his girlfriend and her daughters with a chainsaw. The threat was just as great even if Plaintiff had been using the saw manually. Leon faced an immediate threat, the second and most important factor. C.V. ex rel. Villegas, 823 F.3d at 1255. Although Plaintiff did not have a chainsaw when the officers arrived, Plaintiff emerged from the house holding a large metal object. Plaintiff dropped the object when ordered to do so, but he still had a knife in the left pocket of his pants. Leon, who was standing diagonally to Plaintiff’s right, could not see the knife from his position. Kensic announced that Plaintiff had a knife and ordered Plaintiff to put his hands up. Plaintiff instead lowered his hands toward his thighs—and thus toward the knife—after which Leon fired the beanbag shotgun. The third factor pertains to Plaintiff’s resistance. Before the first shot was fired, Plaintiff put his hands down, and closer to the knife in his pocket, after police repeatedly told him to put his hands up. Plaintiff’s hands remained near the knife in his pocket at the time of the second shot. 14 CORTESLUNA V. LEON In summary, even viewing the facts in Plaintiff’s favor, the force that Leon applied was objectively reasonable in the circumstances, considering both the level of intrusion and the strength of the government’s interest. It bears repeating that our inquiry is an objective one. Despite our colleague’s