Richard Vos v. City of Newport Beach
892 F.3d 1024 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The use of deadly force against an armed and charging, mentally unstable suspect may be constitutionally excessive if officers have a significant tactical advantage, including superior numbers, cover, and readily available less-lethal options. However, officers may still be entitled to qualified immunity if existing precedent does not place the unconstitutionality of their specific actions beyond debate.
Facts:
- Gerritt Vos entered a 7-Eleven convenience store and began behaving erratically, shouting things like 'Kill me already, dog.'
- While inside, Vos armed himself with scissors, briefly grabbed a store employee while yelling 'I've got a hostage!', and caused a 'half-inch laceration' to another employee's hand during an attempt to disarm him.
- Newport Beach police officers arrived and saw Vos yelling, screaming, pretending to have a gun, and eventually retreating into a back room of the store.
- At least eight officers established a perimeter, positioning two police cars in a 'v' formation for cover outside the store's entrance.
- The officers armed themselves with lethal weapons (AR-15 rifles, a handgun) and had less-lethal options ready, including a 40-millimeter projectile launcher and a canine unit.
- After about 20 minutes on scene, Vos ran out of the back room, around a counter, and charged towards the officers from approximately 30 feet away while holding an object over his head.
- An officer yelled 'Drop the weapon,' but Vos continued charging.
- Within seconds of the command, Officers Henry and Farris fired their AR-15 rifles, and another officer fired a less-lethal round, striking Vos four times and killing him.
Procedural Posture:
- Gerritt Vos's parents, as his successors-in-interest, sued the City of Newport Beach and several of its police officers in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
- The defendants (the City and officers) filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss all claims.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, ruling in their favor on all counts.
- The plaintiffs (Vos's parents) appealed the district court's decision 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 deadly force on an armed, mentally unstable individual who is charging at officers from a short distance violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against excessive force when officers have tactical advantages and less-lethal options available?
Opinions:
Majority - Molloy, District Judge
Yes, a reasonable jury could find that the use of deadly force violated the Fourth Amendment. The use of deadly force is the highest level of intrusion, and the government's interest here may not have justified it. Although Gerritt Vos was charging with a weapon, a jury could conclude he was not an immediate threat sufficient to warrant deadly force because the officers had a significant tactical advantage: they outnumbered Vos eight to one, were positioned behind cover, knew he did not have a gun, and had multiple less-lethal options available and ready. Furthermore, Vos's apparent mental instability was a critical factor that diminishes the government's interest in using deadly force. Despite this potential constitutional violation, the individual officers are entitled to qualified immunity because existing precedent had not 'clearly established' that their conduct was unconstitutional in this specific context, particularly given cases like Lal v. California, which involved similar circumstances of 'suicide by cop'.
Dissenting - Bea, Circuit Judge
No, the use of deadly force was objectively reasonable and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The majority ignores the 'split-second' nature of the judgment the officers had to make; they had approximately two seconds to react after Vos ignored a command to drop his weapon and charged at them full speed. Vos had already committed serious crimes, including assault with a deadly weapon, and posed an immediate, mortal threat. An officer's interest in self-preservation is not diminished simply because the assailant is mentally ill; the danger is just as real. The officers were not required to risk one of their own being stabbed while experimenting with less-lethal force in such a rapidly evolving, high-threat situation.
Analysis:
This case exemplifies the significant gap between a potential constitutional violation and actual liability for police officers due to the qualified immunity doctrine. It establishes that even in a 'split-second' confrontation, a jury can consider the totality of circumstances, including police tactical advantages and available alternatives, to find the use of deadly force unreasonable. The ruling reinforces that a suspect's apparent mental illness is a key factor that can diminish the government's interest in using deadly force, requiring officers to consider de-escalation or less-lethal options more thoroughly. However, by granting qualified immunity, the court also signals that the law in this specific area—confronting an aggressively charging, mentally ill suspect—is not yet 'clearly established,' protecting officers from liability even if their actions are later deemed unconstitutional.
Unlock the full brief for Richard Vos v. City of Newport Beach