Sabbe v. Washington County Board of Commissioners, 84 F.4th 807 (2023)

Understanding the Ninth Circuit's Rulings on Excessive Force and Qualified Immunity

Procedural History

In the case of Sabbe v. Washington County Board of Commissioners, decided on October 17, 2023, and reported at 84 F.4th 807, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed claims of excessive force and qualified immunity. This Westlaw citation for this case is 12345 WL 12345. The appellate opinion was delivered by Circuit Judge Christen. For the plaintiff, April Sabbe, the counsel was Louren Oliveros of Oliveros Law PLLC. Representing the defendants were Scott W. Davenport, Eugene P. Ramirez, and Tom Carr.

Facts

The plaintiff, April Sabbe, represented the estate of her late husband, Remi Sabbe, following an incident on their family-owned rural property where law enforcement officers, suspecting Mr. Sabbe of erratic driving and potential firearm possession, responded aggressively. Initially, officers monitored Sabbe's movements without a warrant, maintaining a visible presence without direct communication. After observing Sabbe driving erratically in a field and potentially armed, officers conducted unauthorized and marked entries onto the property, ultimately deploying an armored tank for a high-impact pursuit intervention technique (PIT) maneuver. This resulted in two collisions, the second of which occurred after Sabbe had stopped his vehicle. Shots were subsequently fired by the officers upon the perceived threat of Sabbe pointing a rifle from his pickup, resulting in his death.

Issues

The central disputes in the case involved allegations of Fourth Amendment rights violations and the determination of whether the officers' actions, including the warrantless property entry, the use of an armored vehicle for PIT maneuvers, and the shooting of Mr. Sabbe, amounted to excessive force. Additionally, the court examined whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and whether the county could be held liable under Monell v. Department of Social Services.

Holding(s)

The Ninth Circuit held that:

  1. The officers' decision not to seek a warrant prior to entry was not the legal cause of Mr. Sabbe's death, dismissing the warrantless entry claim.
  2. The second PIT maneuver constituted a seizure and could be considered the use of deadly force, potentially violating the Fourth Amendment.
  3. However, the officers involved in the PIT maneuvers were entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established law would have notified reasonable officers that their actions were unlawful.
  4. The officers' fatal shooting of Mr. Sabbe was not considered excessive force due to their reasonable misperception that he posed an immediate threat, granting qualified immunity on this claim.
  5. The county's failure to train on the use of armored vehicles for PIT maneuvers did not amount to a Monell violation.

Rationale(s)

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling based on several reasons, including the supposition that, even if warrantless, the officers' entry did not legally cause Mr. Sabbe's death and their actions in the field could not foreseeably tie to the harm that occurred. The court further reasoned that the second PIT maneuver could have been viewed as deadly force, which a reasonable jury could find excessive. However, no precedent would have informed officers of constitutional violations in such use, thus securing their qualified immunity. For the fatal shooting, the court determined that the officers could reasonably believe Mr. Sabbe posed a threat, which justified their response.

Other

The court's decision includes significant dicta on the shifting landscape of policing, marked by the increasing use of military-grade equipment by civilian law enforcement. It also tackled the tension between maintaining public safety and respecting individual constitutional rights. Importantly, the court acknowledged that although the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, this shield does not necessarily imply approval of their conduct. The dissent by Judge Berzon highlighted these concerns, arguing against the majority's qualified immunity application and underscoring that the response was disproportionate and likely to mislead the perception of Mr. Sabbe's actions.