Chief’s Counsel: U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Ninth Circuit’s Provocation Rule

In a recent case, County of Los Angeles v. Mendez, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the “provocation rule” developed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1994. The provocation rule provided individuals shot by police with an additional vehicle through which to bring an action for an alleged excessive use of force.

County of Los Angeles v. Mendez

The Ninth Circuit case that led to the creation of the provocation rule involved two deputies who were assigned to a task force established to locate a wanted parolee named Ronnie O’Dell. O’Dell, who was classified as armed and dangerous, was spotted entering a grocery store. The deputies also received a tip from a confidential informant that a man fitting O’Dell’s description had been seen in front of a local residence. One group of deputies searched the main house O’Dell was believed to be at, while other deputies searched the back of the property where there was a shack. Unbeknownst to the deputies, Angel Mendez and his girlfriend Garcia lived in the shack and were sleeping inside the structure. The deputies, who did not have a search warrant, opened the door of the shack without announcing their presence. Mendez rose from the bed, holding a BB gun. A deputy yelled “Gun!” and the other deputies opened fire, shooting both Mendez and Garcia several times. The original object of the search, O’Dell, was not found in the shack or elsewhere on the property.

Read More
Chief's Counsel
Share
Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Wesby, overturned a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and held that the officers had probable cause t...
Chief's Counsel
Share
Officer Verdugo had just marked his second year on the job when he fatally shot a man charging at him with a kitchen knife. A few days after the shooting, while the encounter was still raw in Officer ...
Chief's Counsel
Share
A frequent federal civil rights claim made against police officers is for deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of someone in custody. Usually, the person involved in these claims has ...
Chief's Counsel
Share
The recording of police activity by members of the public is now such a commonplace occurrence that officers should assume that they are being recorded at all times while on duty. The recording of pol...
Chief's Counsel
Share
Police officers encounter many challenges during a patrol shift, and bystanders recording police activity with their ever-accessible smartphone cameras is one of those challenges. There are times when...
Chief's Counsel
Share
Whether in reality or simply by the eye test, peace officer duty–related health issues such as injury and disability claims seem to be an increasingly significant area of liability for police depart...
Chief's Counsel
Share
As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Alito noted in Birchfield v. North Dakota, “[d]runk drivers take a grisly toll on the Nation’s roads, claiming thousands of lives, injuring many more victims, and inf...
Chief's Counsel
Share
In a recent case, County of Los Angeles v. Mendez, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the “provocation rule” developed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1994. The provocation rule provided ...
Chief's Counsel
Share
Just over two years ago, in 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in City & County of San Francisco, California v. Sheehan portended a potential shift in the court’s view on police use of fo...
Chief's Counsel
Share
In 1967, a U.S. Supreme Court decision in Garrity v. New Jersey established that requiring public employees to make potential self-incriminating statements under the threat of job termination constitu...