Supreme Court lets lawsuit proceed over fatal LAPD shooting

The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to stop an excessive-force lawsuit against former LAPD Officer Toni McBride after a six-second street confrontation left Daniel Hernandez dead in April 2020. The justices turned down the city’s appeal, despite arguments o

WASHINGTON — For more than six years, the fight over what happened during a six-second street shooting outside downtown Los Angeles has been waged in courtrooms where the timeline itself matters.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to block an excessive force lawsuit against former Los Angeles Police Department officer Toni McBride, leaving the case to move forward after federal judges concluded she had reason to fire four shots at a suspect but not the two final shots that killed him.

The justices rejected an appeal petition from the Los Angeles city attorney’s office. Two justices — Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — dissented from the denial.

The underlying incident dates to April 2020, when a speeding truck slammed into several cars near downtown Los Angeles. The court filings and prior rulings describe Daniel Hernandez as being under the influence of methamphetamine. After the crash. Hernandez got out of his truck and walked toward McBride. who repeatedly ordered him. “Drop the knife. ” as he approached. He was alleged to have been carrying a knife.

Federal judges agreed that McBride had reason to fire four shots as Hernandez advanced. But the courts drew a line at what happened next: a jury, they said, could decide whether two final shots fired after Hernandez had fallen were excessive.

Last year. the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — in a 6-5 vote — ruled that the case could proceed to a jury. The majority reasoned that in the one-second pause between shots four and five. McBride “could have and should first reassessed the situation” and possibly concluded Hernandez no longer posed a danger.

That distinction matters because it determines whether the doctrine of qualified immunity shields an officer from liability. The Supreme Court has said officers may be sued for unreasonable searches and seizures only if they knowingly violated clearly established law. But the scope of that protection has divided judges. especially when a case hinges on whether a rule was clearly established in the exact kind of fast-moving encounter police face.

In this case, the 9th Circuit majority said shooting a fallen suspect crosses a constitutional line. Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen wrote that it had been clearly established for more than a decade that when an officer shoots and wounds a suspect who then falls to the ground. the officer cannot continue to shoot him absent some indication the person still presents a continuing threat.

Nguyen added that. in the circumstances presented to the court. “A fallen and injured suspect armed only with a bladed instrument does not present a continuing threat merely because he makes nonthreatening movements on the ground.” She said a jury could find McBride employed constitutionally excessive force and that if so. she would not be entitled to qualified immunity.

A divided 9th Circuit panel reached the opposite conclusion about how the confrontation should be judged. The five dissenters said McBride made a reasonable split-second decision.

Judge Ryan Nelson wrote that McBride “was justified in shooting Daniel Hernandez to alleviate the risk that he posed when he advanced toward her while armed and ignoring commands to stop.” He said she could not reasonably be expected to reassess her shooting in the tight six-second period of an intense and dangerous scene. during which Hernandez was rising and “never stopped moving.”.

Judge Patrick Bumatay echoed the concern that appellate judges are looking at a tragedy with too much after-the-fact clarity. He wrote that “Judges review police shootings only in hindsight. ” while they review bodycam footage “years after the fact.” He said courts can “rewind. pause. fast forward — analyzing the situation frame-by-frame. ” and warned that “real life isn’t in slow motion.”.

When the city attorney’s office appealed to the Supreme Court in October. it urged the justices to reverse the 9th Circuit decision. In its filing. the city argued that the appeals court failed to consider the “totality of circumstances from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene. ” and that its ruling refused “to allow for reasonable mistakes in fast-moving. life-threatening encounters.”.

Erwin Chemerinsky, a law dean at UC Berkeley, submitted a response on behalf of the Hernandez family. He urged the Supreme Court to leave the question of reasonableness with a jury. He said “The 9th Circuit simply held that it should be for the jury to resolve the factual dispute over what happened.”.

The Supreme Court considered the appeal after receiving it in late February, before turning it down without comment on Monday.

The sequence of rulings has now reached a point where the courts agree on part of what happened — four shots were justified — while leaving the most disputed moment to be decided by jurors: the two final shots after Hernandez had fallen. With the Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene. the legal system will now have to confront the same question again. this time through a jury rather than appellate judges.

Supreme Court excessive force lawsuit LAPD Toni McBride Daniel Hernandez qualified immunity 9th Circuit Clarence Thomas Samuel Alito