Lal v. California, No. 12-15266 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and California law after police officers shot and killed Kamal Lal. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Lal lead police on a high speed chase for 45 minutes before the officers were able to disable his vehicle. In the four minutes that elapsed after Lal exited the truck, he first tried to seriously injure himself, tried to provoke the officers into shooting him, threw rocks at the officers, and then, ignoring instructions to stop, advanced upon the officers threatening them with a football-sized rock he held over his head. Under the totality of the circumstances, the district court's determinations that the officers objectively feared immediate serious physical harm and that a reasonable officer could have believed that Lal threatened him with immediate serious danger were sound. That Lal may have been intent on committing "suicide by cop" did not negate the fact that he threatened the officers with such immediate serious harm that shooting him was a reasonable response. According, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment which found that police officers were entitled to qualified immunity in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the officers used excessive force when they shot and killed Kamal Lal following a high speed chase. The panel held that under the totality of the circumstances, the district court’s determinations that the officers objectively feared immediate serious physical harm and that a reasonable officer could have believed that Lal threatened him with immediate serious danger were sound. The panel noted that Lal led the police on a high speed chase for 45 minutes before the officers were able to disable his pickup truck. In the four minutes that elapsed after Lal exited the truck, he first tried to seriously injure himself, tried to provoke the officers into shooting him by pantomiming shooting at them with his cell phone, threw rocks at the officers, and then, ignoring directions to stop, advanced upon two officers threatening them with a large rock he held over his head. The panel held that although Lal may have been intent on committing “suicide by cop,” it did not negate the fact that he threatened the officers with such immediate serious harm that shooting him was a reasonable response.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.