Glenn v. Washington County
673 F.3d 864, 2011 WL 6760348 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When officers confront an armed, emotionally disturbed individual who is a threat only to himself, the use of significant force may be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. If an officer's unconstitutional use of an initial, less-lethal force provokes a reaction that is then used to justify a subsequent use of lethal force, the officer may be held liable for the lethal force.
Facts:
- Eighteen-year-old Lukus Glenn, intoxicated and agitated after returning home, began damaging household property.
- Alarmed, his parents saw him holding a pocketknife to his own neck and threatening to kill himself.
- Hope Glenn called 911 for help with her son, informing the dispatcher he was suicidal, intoxicated, and possessed a pocketknife, but had not hurt anyone.
- Deputy Gerba arrived first, bypassed a designated staging area, drew his pistol, and immediately began screaming commands at Lukus from 8-12 feet away.
- A minute later, Deputy Mateski arrived and also drew his weapon and screamed commands at Lukus.
- Officers ordered Lukus's family and friends to move away from him, either into the house or behind the officers' positions.
- After a third officer, Pastore, arrived with a beanbag shotgun, Mateski immediately ordered him to fire, and Pastore shot Lukus with multiple beanbag rounds.
- After being struck by the beanbags, Lukus took one or two steps toward an alcove, at which point Deputies Gerba and Mateski fired eleven shots from their service weapons, striking him eight times and killing him.
Procedural Posture:
- Hope Glenn, as personal representative of the estate of Lukus Glenn, filed a complaint in federal district court against Deputies Mateski and Gerba, and Washington County.
- The complaint alleged a claim for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a state law wrongful death claim.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the officers' actions were objectively reasonable and they were entitled to qualified immunity.
- The U.S. District Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims.
- Hope Glenn (plaintiff-appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the use of significant, escalating force, including a beanbag shotgun and firearms, against an emotionally disturbed and suicidal individual holding a pocketknife to his own neck but not threatening others, constitute an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, thereby making summary judgment for the officers improper?
Opinions:
Majority - Fisher, Circuit Judge
Yes. A jury could find that the officers' use of escalating force against an emotionally disturbed and suicidal individual, who posed little immediate threat to others, was objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, precluding summary judgment. The court must analyze the reasonableness of the force under the totality of the circumstances, applying the factors from Graham v. Connor. Here, the severity of any crime was low, and a jury could find Lukus posed no immediate threat to others, as he only held a pocketknife to his own neck. The government's interest in using force is diminished when dealing with an emotionally disturbed individual. Furthermore, if the initial use of the beanbag shotgun constituted an independent Fourth Amendment violation, it may have provoked Lukus's movement, making the officers liable for their subsequent, otherwise defensive, use of deadly force. Because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the reasonableness of both the less-lethal and lethal force used, summary judgment was inappropriate.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that Fourth Amendment excessive force claims are highly fact-specific inquiries where summary judgment should be granted sparingly. It emphasizes that an individual's status as emotionally disturbed is a critical factor in the 'totality of the circumstances,' which can diminish the government's interest in using significant force. The opinion also strongly applies the provocation doctrine, clarifying that an officer's own unconstitutional escalation can create the exigency used to justify deadly force, thereby precluding qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage. This precedent makes it more difficult for law enforcement to obtain summary judgment in cases involving force against mentally ill or distraught individuals, particularly where police tactics escalate a static situation.
