CTY. of Los Angeles v. Mendez
U.S. Supreme Court · decided May 30, 2017 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Decided
- May 30, 2017
- Term
- October Term 2016
- Vote
- 8–0
- Majority author
- Justice Alito
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court. If law enforcement officers make a "seizure" of a person using force that is judged to be reasonable based on a consideration of the circumstances relevant to that determination, may the officers nevertheless be held liable for injuries caused by the seizure on the ground that they committed a separate Fourth Amendment violation that contributed to their need to use force? The Ninth Circuit has adopted a "provocation rule" that imposes liability in such a situation. We hold that the Fourth Amendment provides no basis for such a rule. A different Fourth Amendment violation cannot transform a later, reasonable use of force into an unreasonable seizure. I A In October 2010, deputies from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department were searching for a parolee-at-large named Ronnie O'Dell. A felony arrest warrant had been issued for O'Dell, who was believed to be armed and dangerous and had previously evaded capture. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, No. 2:11-cv-04771 (CD Cal.), App. to Pet. for Cert. 56a, 64a. Deputies Christopher Conley and Jennifer Pederson were assigned to assist the task force searching for O'Dell. Id., at 57a-58a. The task force received word from a confidential informant that O'Dell had been seen on a bicycle at a home in Lancaster, California, owned by Paula Hughes, and the officers then mapped out…
Excerpt of a 21,187-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.