Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by officers who stopped on reasonable suspicion to stop him based on the fact that defendant was told to stop when he walked away from officers and attempted to leave their field of vision as soon as officers arrived at a known drug house to make an arrest. The officers reasonably feared that defendant might draw a weapon or warn the target of their arrest warrant if he were permitted to withdraw from view. United States v. Darrell, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 38209 (5th Cir. Dec. 23, 2019).
“Plaintiff asserts that the decedent was in an impaired mental state that should have been obvious to the officers and should have caused them to perceive less need to use deadly force. See Longoria, 873 F.3d at 708. Yet even assuming Defendants should have known that the decedent was mentally impaired, that would not have rendered their conduct less reasonable in this case, because the decedent posed a significant and immediate threat, leaving Defendants with no opportunity to attempt to de-escalate the situation. [¶] Because we hold that the officers’ use of deadly force was objectively reasonable at the time of the shooting, we reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. Plaintiff can not establish a violation of the Fourth Amendment.” H.B. v. City of Torrance, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 38227 (9th Cir. Dec. 23, 2019).*