Opinion ID: 772409
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Governmental Interests at Stake

Text: 17 We measure the governmental interests at stake by evaluating a range of factors: they include  `(1) the severity of the crime at issue, (2) whether the suspect pose[d] an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others .. . (3) whether he [was] actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight,' and any other `exigent circumstances [that] existed at the time of the arrest.'  Headwaters Forest, 211 F.3d at 1133 (quoting Chew, 27 F.3d at 1440-1441 & n.5). These factors, however, are simply a means by which to determine objectively the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. Graham, 490 U.S. at 396-97. 18 The character of the offense is often an important consideration in determining whether the use of force was justified. See Chew, 27 F.3d at 1442 & n.9; Headwaters Forest, 211 F.3d at 1138-1139 (same). In this case, the officers were initially on, or attempting to enter, Deorle's property without a warrant. They arrived, not to arrest him, but to investigate his peculiar behavior. Deorle was clearly a deeply troubled, emotionally disturbed individual. Mrs. Deorle testified that pain, induced by a reaction to his medication, had driven Deorle out of control. He just didn't want to live any more. Deorle repeatedly asked officers to shoot him. Lt. Estes, reported that Deorle shouted he ha[d] no reason to live . . . that the pain was unbearable, and that he wanted to be done with the pain, and that there was no use in continuing. Officer Johnson, Rutherford's superior, heard Deorle asking other officers to kill him. Instead of seeking to counsel Deorle, at some point the officers determined to use force to arrest him. They started by testing him with a police dog, and ended by firing the cloth-cased shot in his face. Deorle was eventually charged with obstructing the police in the performance of their duties. See Cal. Pen. Code S 69. 19 The problems posed by, and thus the tactics to be employed against, an emotionally distraught individual who is creating a disturbance or resisting arrest are, and must be, differentiated from those involved in efforts to subdue an armed and dangerous criminal who has recently committed a serious offense. In the former instance, increasing the use of force may, in a number of circumstances, exacerbate the situation; in the latter instance, a heightened use of less-than-lethal force will ordinarily be helpful in bringing a dangerous situation to a swift end. In the case of mentally unbalanced persons, the use of officers and others trained in the art of counseling is ordinarily advisable, and may provide the best means of ending the crisis. Even when an emotionally disturbed individual is acting out and inviting officers to use deadly force to subdue him, the governmental interest in using such force is diminished by the fact that the officers are confronted, not with a criminal, but with a mentally ill person. 20 We acknowledge that police officers' decisions about the appropriate amount of force to use in a given circumstance are often . . . split-second judgments [made ] in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.  Graham, 490 U.S. at 396-97; see also Washington v. Lambert , 98 F.3d 1181, 1186 (9th Cir. 1996). However, the situation here was far from that of a lone police officer suddenly confronted by a dangerous armed felon threatening immediate violence. Rutherford was at the scene for over half an hour before he shot the emotionally disturbed Deorle. He had an opportunity to consult with his superiors before approaching to reconnoiter. Compare Chew, 27 F.3d at 1142. During that time, Deorle did not attempt to evade arrest by flight: he stayed on or adjacent to his own property. He did not pose an immediate safety threat: he responded to the officers' instructions and did not attack anyone. He threw down his potential weapons when ordered to do so. 21 Rutherford observed Deorle at close proximity for about five to ten minutes before shooting. His testimony is that he fired his shotgun as Deorle was walking towards him, at a steady gait, and without any weapons. 15 Rutherford decided that he would shoot when Deorle came within a certain range, steadied himself against a tree, and waited until Deorle reached that point; then, without a command to stop or a warning that force would be employed, he pulled the trigger. Rutherford did not make a split-second choice. See Headwaters Forest, 211 F.3d at 1138 (a reasonable fact finder could conclude that the decision to use non-lethal force was not made in the heat of the moment). 16 Rather, he evinced unhurried deliberation in shooting Deorle. 22 Of course, Deorle might never have passed the predetermined spot had Rutherford given him the warning to which he was entitled or a command to halt. An officer must give a warning, when feasible, before shooting a suspect. See Garner, 471 U.S. at 11-12; Jensen v. City of Oxnard, 145 F.3d 1078, 1086 (9th Cir. 1998). Officers provide warnings, where possible, even when the force used is less than deadly. See Brewer v. City of Napa, 210 F.3d 1093, 1094-1095 (9th Cir. 2000) (police officer gave warning before setting dog on suspect); Vera Cruz, 139 F.3d at 660 (same); Headwaters Forest, 211 F.3d at 1129 (police warned protesters before use of pepper spray); Katz, 194 F.3d at 970 (violently grabbing protester without warning and throwing him into police van was fourth amendment violation). Here, there was ample time to give a warning but no warning was given. Rutherford does not remember giving a warning; nor do any of the other eleven witnesses mention his doing so when describing the events they saw or heard. 17 At most, Rutherford may have shouted less lethal. 18 That cryptic statement was insufficient to alert a target to the force about to be deployed, and does not satisfy the pre-use of force warning requirement.