By MES Dispatch Staff
The Briefing
- The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to review a lower court’s decision allowing an excessive force lawsuit to proceed against former Los Angeles Police Department Officer Toni McBride, who fired at suspect Daniel Hernandez in April 2020.
- The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 6-5 that a jury could decide whether McBride’s final two shots, fired after Hernandez fell to the ground armed with a knife, constituted excessive force.
- Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the Supreme Court’s decision to deny review, signaling concern about limiting qualified immunity protections for law enforcement officers.
- The litigation has extended over six years; McBride fired four shots initially and two additional final shots at the suspect, who had exited a truck that crashed into several cars near downtown Los Angeles.
- The 9th Circuit majority concluded that McBride had a one-second pause to reassess the threat before firing the final two shots, ruling that a jury should decide whether her actions were reasonable.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court refused Monday to halt an excessive force lawsuit against a former Los Angeles Police Department officer who fired six shots at a knife-wielding suspect in April 2020, allowing the case to proceed toward trial.
The decision declined to review a controversial 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that cast doubt on qualified immunity protections in officer-involved shooting cases. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the court’s action, registering their disagreement with refusing to hear the appeal from the Los Angeles city attorney’s office.
The case stems from an April 2020 incident near downtown Los Angeles in which suspect Daniel Hernandez exited a speeding truck that had struck several vehicles. Hernandez, who was allegedly under the influence of methamphetamine, advanced toward Officer Toni McBride while holding a knife. McBride repeatedly commanded him to drop the weapon as he approached.
The appellate court’s majority ruled that McBride was justified in firing her first four shots as Hernandez advanced toward her while ignoring commands to stop. However, the judges found that the final two shots, fired after Hernandez fell to the ground, presented a different legal question for a jury to resolve.
The 9th Circuit majority, voting 6-5, emphasized that a one-second pause between the fourth and fifth shots gave McBride time to reassess whether Hernandez continued to pose a threat. Judge Jacqueline Nguyen wrote that firing on a fallen and injured suspect armed only with a knife does not constitute an automatically reasonable response and that qualified immunity protections should not shield the officer from jury review.
The five-judge dissent argued McBride made a reasonable split-second decision in a fast-moving, life-threatening situation. Judge Ryan Nelson contended McBride was justified in continuing to fire given the ongoing danger posed by Hernandez’s armed status and continued movement. Judge Patrick Bumatay raised concerns about judges reviewing police shootings in hindsight, noting that frame-by-frame video analysis does not reflect real-time decision-making.
The Supreme Court’s denial of review without comment allows the lower court ruling to stand, meaning McBride may now face trial on the excessive force claims. The Los Angeles city attorney’s office had urged the justices to overturn the 9th Circuit decision, arguing the appeals court failed to consider the totality of circumstances and failed to account for reasonable mistakes in fast-moving, dangerous encounters.
Legal experts view the Supreme Court’s action as significant given the justices’ recent trend of expanding qualified immunity protections for law enforcement. The case has remained in litigation for six years and represents an ongoing debate within the judiciary over balancing officer safety concerns with civil rights protections.