A detailed look at qualified immunity's role in police use of force.
In the case of Smith v. Agdeppa, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered its opinion on August 30, 2023, citing case number 81 F.4th 994. The case also appears in the 2023 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8943. The presiding panel included Judges Consuelo M. Callahan, Morgan Christen, and Daniel A. Bress, with Judge Bress authoring the opinion and Judge Christen dissenting. Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee were Edward M. Lyman III and others, while Kevin E. Gilbert and his team represented defendant-appellant Edward Agdeppa.
The confrontation between Los Angeles police officers and a suspect, Albert Dorsey, culminated in a fatal police shooting at a gym. Dorsey, who was unclothed, resisted officers' attempts to handcuff him, prompting a violent and prolonged altercation. Despite officers' several uses of tasers, Dorsey overpowered them, seizing control of an officer's taser. Agdeppa, fearing for his colleague's life, shot and killed Dorsey.
The dispute centered on whether Officer Agdeppa's use of deadly force was justified and if he was entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity shields officers from liability unless they violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right that a reasonable officer would have known.
The court reversed the district court's decision, granting Agdeppa qualified immunity. It was held that the officer's use of deadly force did not violate clearly established law due to the perceived imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officers.
The majority's rationale hinged on Agdeppa's perception of imminent threat against the officers. Agdeppa's shots were deemed a response to the objective danger Dorsey posed after non-lethal measures failed. While the district court pointed to genuine disputes of material fact, the appellate court found that these did not undermine the central undisputed facts justifying the use of deadly force. The court stressed the rapidly escalating risk Dorsey presented, leading Agdeppa to resort to lethal force to protect his fellow officer and himself.
Judge Christen's dissent raised significant issues. It disagreed with the majority's assessment of witness credibility and the urgency of the threat. The dissent argued that the majority overstepped the appellate court's bounds by making factual determinations that should have been reserved for a jury, notably whether Agdeppa's failure to warn constituted a violation of Dorsey's constitutional rights.
The decision addresses a contentious aspect of law enforcement: the balance between officers’ safety and individuals' civil rights. The majority's focus on the specific circumstances of this encounter suggests a reliance on the officers' split-second decisions in high-stress situations, while the dissent fears undermining the constitutional safeguards meant to check excessive use of police force. The case underscores the legal challenges in determining qualified immunity and could serve as a reference for future disputes involving police conduct and civil rights claims.