CA9: RIPP restraint was seizure and no QI here

Decedent died in a police car with an RIPP restraint bending him backwards. That’s a seizure, and the officers here do not get qualified immunity in the excessive force claim. Gonzalez v. City of Phx., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 426 (9th Cir. Jan. 8, 2026).* From the syllabus, omitting concurrence:

The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Phoenix Police Department officers in a suit alleging that after apprehending decedent Timothy Lopez following a foot chase, the officers used excessive force by applying a RIPP hobble restraint that bent Lopez’s body upward into a hogtied position while he lay face down in a police vehicle, during which he became unresponsive, and was later pronounced dead.

The panel first held that the officers’ actions of placing and transporting Lopez in a RIPP constituted a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes. The panel next held that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, Lopez’s mother, a jury could determine that the officers’ use of force was unreasonable because the RIPP restraint exerted significant pressure on Lopez’s chest, restricting his ability to breathe and unnecessarily creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. Furthermore, the law from this circuit has long established that in a situation in which an arrestee surrenders and is rendered helpless, any reasonable officer would know that a continued use of force or a refusal without cause to alleviate its harmful effects constitutes excessive force. Accordingly, the panel affirmed the district court and remanded for further proceedings.

This entry was posted in Excessive force, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.