Smith v. City of Hemet
A plain-English summary from Criminal Defense Resources™, a free resource for pro per/pro se defendants and their families.
- Decided
- Citation
- 394 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc)
What did the court decide?
In a civil excessive-force lawsuit, the full Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiff's earlier conviction for resisting or obstructing an officer did not automatically bar his lawsuit, because the force may have been used after the conduct behind the conviction. It also defined "deadly force" as force that creates a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury, and reversed summary judgment for the officers. In deciding the force issue could not be resolved without a trial, the court noted that the plaintiff offered an expert declaration, based on California's Peace Officer Standards and Training, that officers could have used control holds instead of a police dog, and said a rational jury could rely on such evidence. It cited Larez v. City of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d 630 (9th Cir. 1991), and Davis v. Mason County, 927 F.2d 1473 (9th Cir. 1991), for police-practices expert testimony.
Why does it matter?
This is a civil case, and its main holdings are about Heck v. Humphrey and the meaning of deadly force, not about experts. It does not give a criminal defendant a right to a police-practices expert, but it shows courts treating evidence about police standards and available alternatives as relevant to whether force was reasonable.
Where can I read the full opinion?
Read the full opinion on U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit →
Always read the full opinion and check whether later cases have limited or changed it. A summary can leave out important details.