WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., criticized the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last week for mishandling a case, ordering the court to award damages to the victims in response to its error, according to the Los Angeles Times.
The Los Angeles Times reported San Jose Police Sgt. Michael Pina shot and killed Jacob Dominguez at a traffic stop in 2017, despite Dominguez being unarmed and complying with the officer’s instructions.
Dominguez reportedly had his head, shoulders, and left arm above the frame of the driver’s side door when he was shot. According to court records, Dominguez was under arrest for a gas station robbery in which there is no evidence of his being armed during the incident, added the Los Angeles Times.
The LA Times noted Dominguez’s wife sued Officer Pina and won $1 million in damages in 2023 when the federal civil jury found excessive force was used. Pina and the San Jose Police Department claimed they were to be protected under qualified immunity, in which government officials can be protected from civil suits.
Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., advised the lower court not to take the California police shooting case in question, writes the LA Times. The LA Times also adds, the circuit court relied on a 2022 appellate decision to rule the officer was not liable for the shooting that took place in 2017.
The LA Times quotes Justice Alito who claimed, “The courts below badly fumbled this basic tenet of our qualified immunity doctrine.”
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Peck vs. Montoya, where police shot and killed a blind man, countered this, in which U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman disagreed. This case was decided after Officer Pina shot and killed Dominguez, adds The LA Times.
And, Judge Freeman stated, “the Ninth Circuit’s analysis of what was established at the time of the incident at issue in Peck is helpful.” The appellate court had also upheld Freeman’s decision in an unpublished decision, the LA Times explained.
The LA Times writes the appellate panel reported in May, referencing the Dominguez case, “In such circumstances, deadly force is not justified.”
In his dissent, The LA Times states Justice Alito denounced the appellate panel claiming the judges “sneaked” justification of qualified immunity, adding, “To overcome qualified immunity, a party must show that an official violated a federal right that ‘was ‘clearly established’ at the time of [the] alleged misconduct.”
The LA Times reported Justice Alito asserted this requirement was to not hold government officials liable for conduct without being aware such conduct was unlawful.
The LA Times explains qualified immunity doesn’t protect police from financial troubles in civil suits because less than one percent of damages are paid by officers. And, because of the precedent not being established, Pina could not have known that killing Dominguez would lead to a civil lawsuit, writes The LA Times.
The LA Times quoted Joanna C. Schwartz, an expert on police misconduct litigation at the UCLA School of Law, who stated, “This is the kind of decision that illustrates the nonsensical nature of qualified immunity,” adding her research does not support the claim of officers being left “unfairly exposed” in Judge Alito’s interpretation of the appellate decision.
The LA Times wrote if Pina had known about the Peck case when he acted in the shooting, it still would have been unreasonable to be aware of that knowledge in such a situation.
Schwartz said this is because officers are being made aware of important changes in the law, as opposed to gradual changes, wrote the LA Times, and Schwartz challenges the rationale behind the immunity doctrine, highlighting the complexities that arise when higher courts interpret laws.
