Opinion ID: 772158
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Split-Second Judgment

Text: 69 Throughout the trial and in their papers on appeal, defendants continually alluded to the ongoing battle the Humboldt County Sheriff's Department and the Eureka Police Department were having with environmental activists prior to the protests in question. But the proper focus of the analysis under Graham is on events immediately confronting the officers when they decided to use pepper spray. The fact that the defendants were increasingly frustrated by the protesters -who had developed techniques such as lock-down devices to prolong nonviolent civil protests -is irrelevant under Graham. 70 Under Graham and its progeny, [t]he `reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene . . . . Graham, 490 U.S. at 396 (emphasis added). The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments -in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving -about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. Id. at 396-97. [W]hen we evaluate whether the police conduct was lawful or unlawful, we must do so in light of the dangerousness of the particular situation that confronted the police, Washington v. Lambert , 98 F.3d 1181, 1186 (9th Cir. 1996), without regard to [the officers'] underlying intent or motivation, Graham, 490 U.S. at 397. 71 Nothing in the record suggests that the decision to use pepper spray during each of the three protests at issue in this case was a split-second judgment made in circumstances that were `rapidly evolving.'  Chew , 27 F.3d at 1443 (quoting Graham, 490 U.S. at 397). To the contrary, the officers testified that the only exigency here was the use of the black bear lock-down devices. And they further testified that the decision authorizing pepper spray's use on any protester using such a lock-down device was made before the officers were even called to the scenes of the protests. In light of this evidence, a reasonable fact finder could conclude that the decisions to use pepper spray during each of the protests were not made in the heat of the moment. 72