Yount v. City of Sacramento

Last updated
Yount v. City of Sacramento
Seal of the Supreme Court of California.svg
Decided May 19, 2008
Full case nameSteven Yount v. City of Sacramento, et al.
Citation(s) 43 Cal.4th 885
183 P.3d 471
Holding
The plaintiff's claims were barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994), to the extent that they alleged that the defendant officer was not entitled to use any level of force against the plaintiff because the plaintiff's acts of kicking, spitting, and refusing to co-operate with the officers justified the officers in using reasonable force to subdue him. However, the plaintiff's claims were not barred by Heck v. Humphrey to the extent that they alleged that the defendant officer was not justified in using deadly force against the plaintiff in response to the plaintiff's acts of resistance.
Court membership
Chief Justice Ronald M. George
Associate Justices Marvin A. Baxter, Joyce L. Kennard, Ming W. Chin Carlos R. Moreno, Carol A. Corrigan, Kathryn M. Werdegar
Case opinions
MajorityBaxter, joined by George, Kennard, Chin, Moreno, and Corrigan
ConcurrenceWerdegar

Yount v. City of Sacramento [1] was a decision of the California Supreme Court, which significantly expanded the rights of a convicted arrestee subjected to excessive force during arrest. The case was brought by Brian T. Dunn of The Cochran Firm in California, on behalf of Steven Yount [2] when Yount was shot by a Sacramento police officer after being handcuffed during a DUI arrest.

Contents

Background

During the early morning hours of March 10, 2001, Steven Yount, the plaintiff in the Yount case, left his home, got into his car and drove to a 7-Eleven store in Sacramento to purchase alcohol. Yount had already consumed beer and liquor that morning and was very drunk. A security guard in the parking lot of the 7-Eleven called police after he observed the visibly-intoxicated Yount attempting to get back into his vehicle. Sacramento Police Department Officer Samuel Davis arrived at the 7-Eleven, approached Yount's car, and asked him to step out of the vehicle.

He complied with Davis's request to get out of the car but refused to get inside the patrol vehicle. After some effort, Davis was able to secure Yount in the backseat of his patrol vehicle. In the backseat of the patrol vehicle, Yount shouted obscenities and racial slurs at Davis and kicked and banged his head against the side and window of the patrol vehicle.

With the assistance of two security guards in the area, Davis was able to pull Yount out of the patrol vehicle, handcuff him, and place him back inside the patrol vehicle. After he was placed back inside the patrol vehicle, he continued to shout and kick and bang his head against the doors of the vehicle. Sacramento Police Department Officers Debra Hatfield, Daniel Swafford, and Thomas Schrum responded to the 7-Eleven to assist Davis.

Schrum opened the door of Davis's patrol vehicle to ask Yount for identification. When Schrum opened the door of the patrol vehicle, Yount popped out of the vehicle, attempted to move right in Schrum's face, and continued to yell and curse at the officers. Schrum forced Yount back into the patrol vehicle. Yount continued yelling obscenities at the officers and banging on the patrol vehicle while kicking his legs at Schrum. Swafford tased Yount.

After Swafford deployed the Taser, Yount became more violent and continued to yell obscenities and racial slurs at the officers. Yount also kicked out the window of Davis's patrol vehicle. The officers decided to restrain Yount's legs before they placed him into a different patrol vehicle. When they attempted to pull Yount out of Davis's patrol vehicle, Yount refused to co-operate and resisted the officers' efforts to remove him from the vehicle.

The officers eventually managed to pull Yount out of the patrol vehicle. After the officers pulled him out of the patrol vehicle, Davis stumbled and fell to the ground. Yount kicked him and spat at him. Davis got on top of Yount, who was continuing to struggle and shout, and the officers were able to secure Yount's legs with ankle restraints. He continued to resist the officers by kicking and spitting at them. Schrum pulled out what he thought was a Taser and fired it at the back of Yount's thigh. Then, Schrum realized that he had mistakenly grabbed his firearm, instead of his Taser. Yount sustained a gunshot wound to his left buttock.

Civil rights case

After the incident, Yount was charged with resisting arrest in violation of California Penal Code, section 148, and driving under the influence. He pleaded no contest to and was convicted of both offenses. After the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, Brian T. Dunn, an attorney at The Cochran Firm, specializing in civil rights cases, filed a civil action on Yount's behalf against Schrum and the City of Sacramento in the Sacramento County Superior Court, alleging a claim for violation of civil rights under Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code, among others. The complaint alleged that Schrum had shot him without justification and violated his constitutional rights.

The defendants argued that the 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim was a collateral attack on the conviction for resisting arrest and so was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, [3] 512 U.S. 477, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994). That was a US Supreme Court decision that held that a plaintiff is barred from prosecuting a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action if the successful resolution of the action would necessarily imply the invalidity of a criminal conviction of the plaintiff.

The issue was whether a finding in favor of Yount on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim would "necessarily imply the invalidity" of his criminal conviction for resisting arrest. Submitted to the California Supreme Court for decision. The appeal was briefed and argued by Dunn.

Decision

The California Supreme Court held that the civil claims were barred to the extent that they alleged that Schrum was not entitled to use any force during the incident, as the use of resistance justified the use of reasonable force in response to his actions. The Court further held, however, that the civil claims were not barred, as to the use of deadly force, as it was not reasonable under the circumstances. The conviction for resisting arrest did not, by itself, provide a justification for the use of deadly force.

In holding that success on the claim of excessive deadly force would not necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction for resisting arrest, the California Supreme Court analyzed the relationship between his acts of resistance and Schrum's misconduct. The Court began its analysis by noting that Officer Schrum was justified in using "reasonable force" against Mr. Yount, who was kicking, spitting, and refusing to co-operate with the officers in the moments prior to the shooting. Consequently, to the extent that his claims alleged that he was not resisting or obstructing the officers and that the officers were not justified in using any level of force against him, they would be inconsistent with his conviction for resisting and so were barred by Heck.

The California Supreme Court also noted, however, that he had alleged that the use of deadly force was excessive under the circumstances and not justified by his acts of resistance during the incident. The Court held that to the extent that his claims were based on Schrum's unjustifiable use of deadly force, the claims were not barred under Heck because the evidence did not support the use of deadly force against Yount. His criminal conviction for resisting arrest, standing alone, did not establish a justification for Schrum's use of deadly force against him. Accordingly, Yount's claim that the use of deadly force was not a reasonable response to his acts of resistance did not call the validity of his conviction for resisting arrest into question.

Legacy

The decision has been followed by a number of courts confronted with cases involving similar facts, including the California Court of Appeals, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and federal district courts in California.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deadly force</span> Use of force, likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to another person

Deadly force, also known as lethal force, is the use of force that is likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to another person. In most jurisdictions, the use of deadly force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity as a last resort, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.

The concept of justifiable homicide in criminal law is a defense to culpable homicide. Generally, there is a burden of production of exculpatory evidence in the legal defense of justification. In most countries, a homicide is justified when there is sufficient evidence to disprove the alleged criminal act or wrongdoing. The key to this legal defense is that it was reasonable for the subject to believe that there was an imminent and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent by the deceased when they committed the homicide. A homicide in this instance is blameless.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California Highway Patrol</span> State law enforcement agency in California, USA

The California Highway Patrol (CHP) is a state law enforcement agency of the U.S. state of California. The CHP has primary patrol jurisdiction over all California highways and roads and streets outside city limits, and can exercise law enforcement powers anywhere within the state. The California Highway Patrol can assist local and county agencies and can patrol major city streets along with local and county law enforcement, state and interstate highways, and is the primary law enforcement agency in rural parts of the state.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Use of force</span> Force needed to compel compliance

The use of force, in the context of law enforcement, may be defined as the "amount of effort required by police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject".

In the United States, self-defense is an affirmative defense that is used to justify the use of force by one person against another person under specific circumstances.

Resisting arrest, or simply resisting, is an illegal act of a suspected criminal either fleeing, threatening, assaulting, or providing a fake ID to a police officer during arrest. In most cases, the person responsible for resisting arrest is criminally charged or taken to court.

Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), was a 1969 United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that police officers arresting a person at home could not search the entire home without a search warrant, but police may search the area within immediate reach of the person without a warrant. The rule on searches incident to a lawful arrest within the home is now known as the Chimel Rule.

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a civil case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

On November 14, 2006, Mostafa Tabatabainejad, a fourth-year University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) student, was drive stunned five times with a Taser by campus police while handcuffed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sacramento County Sheriff's Department</span> Law enforcement agency in California

The Sacramento County Sheriff's Office (SSO), is a local law enforcement agency that serves Sacramento County, California. It provides general-service law enforcement to unincorporated areas of Sacramento County, as well as incorporated cities within the county that have contracted with the agency for law-enforcement services. Currently only Rancho Cordova, and Isleton has such a contract with the department since the Citrus Heights and Elk Grove Police Departments assumed all police authority and responsibility for their communities in 2006. It also holds primary jurisdiction over facilities operated by Sacramento County, such as local parks, marinas, and government buildings; provides marshal service for the Sacramento County Superior Court; operates the Sacramento County Jail and the Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center in Elk Grove; and provides services such as laboratories and academy training to smaller law-enforcement agencies within the county. The county sheriff is currently Jim Cooper.

Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that all occupants of a car are "seized" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment during a traffic stop, not just the driver.

The Penal Law of the State of New York combines justification and necessity into a single article, Article 35. "Defense of Justification" comprises sections 35.05 through 35.30 of the Penal Law. The general provision relating to necessity, section 35.05, provides:

§ 35.05 Justification; generally.

Unless otherwise limited by the ensuing provisions of this article defining justifiable use of physical force, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when:

Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court criminal law decision holding that a police officer ordering a person out of a car following a traffic stop and conducting a pat-down to check for weapons did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

<i>Bryan v. MacPherson</i>

Bryan v. McPherson, 630 F.3d 805, was heard by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in October 2009. Plaintiff-appellee Carl Bryan was tasered by defendant-appellant Officer Brian MacPherson after being pulled over to the side of the road for failure to wear a seat belt. The case considered whether MacPherson's use of a taser during a routine traffic stop violated Bryan's Fourth Amendment rights. The majority opinion, written by Kim McLane Wardlaw, declared that the use of the taser in this situation could be considered excessive force. Richard Tallman and Consuelo María Callahan wrote the dissent. This case affirmed that this use of a taser could indeed be considered excessive force.

<i>Plummer v. State</i>

Plummer v. State was an 1893 court case decided by the Indiana Supreme Court. The case overturned a manslaughter conviction, ruling that the convicted defendant had been protecting himself from the illegal use of force by a police officer. It is widely quoted on the internet, under the false belief that it gives citizens the right to resist an unlawful arrest by force, including deadly force. The full citation is Plummer v. State, 135 Ind. 308, 34 N.E. 968 (1893).

<i>Buckley v. Haddock</i>

Buckley v. Haddock, 292 F. App'x 791, was a case involving excessive force used upon Jesse Buckley by Deputy Sheriff Jonathan Rackard. Deputy Rackard used an electronic control device, or Taser, three times on Buckley because he was resisting arrest. The case was brought against the Sheriff of Washington County, Florida, Hon. Bobby Haddock, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The District Court ruled in favor of Buckley, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed, ruling in favor of Deputy Rackard.

The death of Mexican citizen Anastasio Hernández Rojas was allegedly caused by a heart attack due to physical exertion during an altercation with multiple agents of the United States Border Patrol and methamphetamine poisoning and occurred in May 2010. The controversial death of Hernández-Rojas occurred after a US border deportation dispute involving Federal agent use of taser(s) and alleged excessive force has caused a demand by the Mexican government for a through investigation. A national newspaper in Mexico, El Universal, claimed that up to 20 US federal border agents were beating Mr. Hernández-Rojas in the presence of various witnesses while he pleaded for mercy.

On July 18, 2013, Tyrone West, a 44-year-old African American male, was pursued by two officers of the Baltimore Police Department after he fled a traffic stop during which cocaine was allegedly found. The cocaine later went missing in police possession after a subpoena was issued. West was on parole at the time of this incident with an extensive criminal record including assault, resisting arrest, and attempted first-degree murder. West ultimately died during the scuffle with police and various medical experts have given conflicting assessments of contributing factors including cardiac arrhythmia, dehydration, positional asphyxia, and extreme environmental temperatures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Killing of Stephon Clark</span> 2018 fatal shooting by police in Sacramento, California

In the late evening of March 18, 2018, Stephon Clark, a 22-year-old African-American man, was shot and killed in Meadowview, Sacramento, California by Terrence Mercadal and Jared Robinet, two officers of the Sacramento Police Department in the backyard of his grandmother's house while he had a phone in his hand. The encounter was filmed by police video cameras and by a Sacramento County Sheriff's Department helicopter which was involved in observing Clark on the ground and in directing ground officers to the point at which the shooting took place. The officers stated that they shot Clark, firing 20 rounds, believing that he had pointed a gun at them. Police found only a cell phone on him. While the Sacramento County Coroner's autopsy report concluded that Clark was shot seven times, including three shots to the right side of the back, the pathologist hired by the Clark family stated that Clark was shot eight times, including six times in the back.

The Chicago Police Board voted on October 17, 2019 to dismiss Chicago Police (CPD) Officer Robert Rialmo who fatally shot Quintonio LeGrier and neighbor Bettie Jones on December 26, 2015 while answering a 911 domestic violence call at the LeGrier residence in Chicago. The dismissal capped a "chaotic finish to a high-profile trial" where a judge first announced that the jury found Rialmo unjustified in his shooting of LeGrier, but erased the verdict promptly, after declaring that the jury found Rialmo feared for his life when he shot LeGrier.

References

  1. ↑ "43 Cal.4th 885 (2008)". California supreme Court.
  2. ↑ "Steve Yount - Man Who Pleaded 'No Contest'". Los Angeles Daily Journal. Los Angeles Daily Journal.
  3. ↑ "512 U.S. 477, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994)". Supreme Court of the United States. Cornell University Law School.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.