LOS ANGELES – The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday sided with Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies and threw out a lower court ruling affirming a $4 million award to a formerly homeless Lancaster husband and wife for a warrantless raid that caused the man to lose a leg.
In its ruling, the nation’s highest court found that law enforcement cannot be sued for injuries they caused during a search unless the search itself is “unreasonable” under the Fourth Amendment.
Angel Mendez and his wife sued Los Angeles County six years ago, alleging excessive force and federal civil rights violations.
The couple were living in a makeshift dwelling in 2010 when they were shot by sheriff’s deputies Christopher Conley and Jennifer Pederson, members of the Community-Oriented Policing Unit, during a warrantless raid while searching for a parolee-at-large, according to court papers.
Mendez, who was holding a rifle-style BB gun, was critically injured, resulting in the amputation of one of his legs. His wife, who was pregnant at the time, was struck once by a bullet, which shattered her collar bone.
U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald handed down his ruling for the plaintiffs in Los Angeles federal court in August 2013, awarding $3.8 million to Mendez and $222,000 to his wife, for damages resulting from Fourth Amendment violations by the deputies.
According to Fitzgerald’s ruling, Conley and Pederson “violated Mr. and Mrs. Mendez’s constitutional right to be free from an unreasonable search based on the manner of entry.”
The deputies appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last year, unsuccessfully arguing that the dilapidated wooden shack did not appear to be a residence and consequently a warrant was not required.
Affirming Fitzgerald’s finding, the appellate panel determined that the deputies should have known that the shack was occupied, since it was “surrounded by an air conditioning unit, electric cord, water hose, and clothes locker.”
The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court, which effectively ended the case.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs could not immediately be reached for comment.
The unanimous ruling rejected the “provocation” rule that holds that law enforcement may be sued for violating a victim’s constitutional rights against unreasonable searches if they provoked a confrontation that resulted in violence.
In the 8-0 decision, Justice Samuel A. Alito wrote that the “basic problem” with the rule is that it “provides a novel and unsupported path to liability in cases in which the use of force was reasonable.”
The Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs — the collective bargaining agent representing more than 8,200 deputy sheriffs and district attorney investigators working in Los Angeles County — applauded the decision.
“ALADS is grateful a unanimous United States Supreme Court rejected the `provocation rule created by the 9th Circuit to judge use of force by deputies,” the statement read. “This invented rule put the lives of deputies in danger by causing them to hesitate in using reasonable force to defend themselves for fear of later civil liability. The Supreme Court decision is a strong reaffirmation that any use of force will be judged solely based on the facts known to the deputies at the time force was employed.”
Previous related stories:
Appeals court upholds $4 million award to Lancaster couple in excessive force case
Sheriff candidates respond to attorney’s call for accountability
–
Bob S. says
Poor moochers, now all they have is each other and a very disappointed plaintiff’s attorney.
Tom says
It’s about time someone with common sense throws out another get me rich case against law enforcement department’s. These departments have settled so many times instead of fighting in court, that everyone decides too sue the cops knows there going too get some money. Im just shocked it was LASD, but happy.
Malvenue says
What’s this? The Ninth Circuit unanimously overturned by the US Supreme Court AGAIN?
I am SHOCKED! SHOCKED, I say!
That’s what you get for inventing law out of thin air. “Provocation doctrine”, my arse.
Ashley says
4 million? That is outrageous and insane!!!! I am so glad that it was tossed out.
Those folks probably thought they had it made. They probably would have wasted it anyhow poor people don’t know how to save/spend money they are usually very reckless.
Thought they had a pay day coming. Now you will just be living off of welfare and disability like the rest of the Antelope Valley who thinks they are owed something.
[removed] says
Ashely. You are rude. Poor people don’t know how to save money and they’re reckless? What kind of white privileged [removed] is that? I hope someone shoots you in the collar bone, amputates your leg and then tells you all you’re looking for is a pay off and you don’t deserve any type of settlement. Then listen to you complain about your rights as a human being as some privelaged [removed] tells you that you think you are owed something. People like you are the reason the richer get richer.
Mike says
This is a bunch bullsh_t. Angel and Jennifer deserve every single penny of this money. The cops should have both been fired but when your a citizen in California you don’t stand a chance.
Matt K. says
Nothing to do with “California”. It was a ruling by the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT!
Nikolas says
^^^ THIS.
Shane Falco says
It was also a unanimous decision by SCOTUS so even the far lefties agreed with the deputies.
I hope they’ve found jobs and weren’t cruising along hoping for a payday. They won’t be getting any money but on the bright side, the taxpayers just saved 4 million and Los Angeles county is wanting more people on food stamps.
Shane Falco says
Surely you and Tim will make this into the grand conspiracy of rex, hofbauer, crist, baca and let’s not forget the Pentavirate with the Queen of England, the Vatican, the Gettys, the Rothschilds, and Colonel Sanders before he went tets-up.
Everybody knows the reach from Lancaster permeates to the highest reaches of government.
Candyman says
Rex, Hofbauer, Crist, Bishop, and Baca had nothing to do with this. They are busy taking control of Palmdale. They do not have time for this.
Enjoy that 3% at 50 Foolco.
William says
Falco, you wrote “…the taxpayers just saved 4 million…”
We here all know that you don’t care at all about other taxpayers. It’s all about you and your few dollars paid to the government that you’re whining ’bout. It’s always ’bout Y-O-U and your wretched existence.
One would think with all your wealth (you must pay millions in taxes the way you complain) you would be happy but yer not. Wherever you go you take that whiner Shane Falco with you. There’s no escape.
Your only contribution to the world is that you provide an opportunity for others to experience some good schadenfreude courtesy of you.
You make our days.
So, there’s that.
Go. Get outta California and never darken our borders again. Spare us your constant complainng……………a life well spent. (sarcasm alert) You sound like trump.
Lae says
this “far lefty” doesn’t agree with deputies OR the SCOTUS ruling
Laughing says
I have read other news pages looking at the case in depth. I lean conservative on this issue.
It seems the ‘home’ was built by the guy shot. It had a curtain door, not solid and looked like a shed. But it is still a ‘home’.
According to several of the articles, the officers did not announce, rather one peeked in which scared the guy who grabbed a BB rifle (his second amendment right to defend himself from intruder in his home). The officer just saw a rifle and yelled gun and they opened fire without hesitating.
Now hind sight is 20/20 and we know the officers should have backed off and demanded the weapon be thrown out and the ‘suspect’ come out backwards or some silly thing. In the heat of the moment the officer freaked as badly as the ‘homeowner’.
Since the victims of the shooting were grievously injured, the officers did not announce themselves it is just my humble opinion that they deserve something for the life threatening situation they were immediately placed into, the injuries they received, and the lifelong trauma and inconvience they are enduring.