Thompson v. Copeland, No. 16-35301 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging that a police officer used excessive force. Plaintiff alleged that excessive force was used when the officer pointed a gun at plaintiff's head in the context of a felony arrest after plaintiff had already been searched, was calm and compliant, and was being watched over by a second armed deputy. The panel held that pointing a loaded gun at the suspect's head in these circumstances constituted excessive force under the Fourth Amendment, but that the officers here were entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time of the traffic stop.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment, on qualified immunity grounds, in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that a police officer used excessive force when he pointed a gun at plaintiff’s head in the context of a felony arrest after plaintiff had already been searched, was calm and compliant, and was being watched over by a second armed deputy. Examining the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the non-moving party on summary judgment, the panel assumed that the police officer did indeed point his gun at plaintiff’s head and threatened to kill him. The panel held that under the circumstances, defendant’s use of force in arresting plaintiff was not objectively reasonable. The panel held that where, as in this case, officers have an unarmed felony suspect under control, where they easily could have handcuffed the suspect while he was sitting on the squad car, and where the suspect is not in close proximity to an accessible weapon, a gun to the head constitutes excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. The panel nevertheless held that although the use of excessive force violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights, defendant was entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff’s right not to have a gun pointed at him under the
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.