C.D.Cal.: Police missing target and shooting innocent bystander is a 4A seizure, but with QI

Shooting at a suspect and hitting an innocent bystander is a Fourth Amendment seizure under Brower and Torres, but it gets qualified immunity. Larocca v. City of L.A., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45650 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2024):

This case presents the dilemma of the innocent bystander: an officer undisputedly and objectively intends to target a particular suspect, fires their weapon at that suspect, but accidentally hits an innocent person standing several feet away. Has the officer seized the innocent person struck by the projectile?

Under Brower v. Cnty. of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (1989) and Torres v. Madrid, 141 S. Ct. 989 (2021), the answer is yes, the innocent person has been seized under the Fourth Amendment. Here, that means that Officer Otamendi seized Plaintiff Joseph LaRocca when he inadvertently struck Plaintiff with a projectile. Moreover, a reasonable juror could find that Officer Otamendi’s use of force was unreasonable. Accordingly, a reasonable juror could find that Officer Otamendi violated the Fourth Amendment.

However, the Court also concludes that Officer Otamendi is entitled to qualified immunity. Though this Court reads Brower and Torres as requiring a holding that an innocent bystander struck by an officer’s use of force is seized, that holding, as explained below, is not clearly established by binding precedent. Nor does the Court find it clearly established that Officer Otamendi’s use of force was unreasonable. Accordingly, Officer Otamendi is entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Comments are closed.