A federal appeals panel has issued a ruling defining when police can detain a person — without making a criminal accusation — in order to obtain information that might prevent a mass shooting.
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion July 7 addressing an ongoing legal battle between plaintiffs William and Celia Bernal and several law enforcement agencies and officers, including the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office and police departments in Rancho Cordova and Folsom. According to court records, in March 2018 police went to the Bernals’ home to investigate allegations their son was planning to shoot people at his school. During that visit, they allegedly physically restrained both adults.
U.S. District Judge Morrison England granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding the officers neither violated Fourth Amendment protections against detention without reasonable suspicion nor did they use excessive force. Morrison further said even if he had found use of excessive force, qualified immunity would have shielded the officers from legal liability.
Judge James Selna, sitting by designation, wrote the panel’s opinion; Judges Ronald Gould and Sandra Ikuta concurred.
According to Selna, the situation started when Vista Del Lago High School contacted the sheriff’s department about a student absence. Folsom Police reported knowledge of a text message from the Bernals’ son to a friend indicating intentions to “shoot up the school, and today was the day.” One deputy called Celia Bernal, who said her son was with his grandmother but wouldn’t provide that address because she couldn’t verify the deputy’s identity.
“The deputies proceeded to the Bernals’ home in six marked patrol cars and parked around the cul-de-sac in front of the house,” Selna wrote. “As the deputies walked up to the Bernals’ driveway, they saw Celia and William exiting the home and heading towards their car. They did not see Ryan or anyone matching his description. The deputies intended to briefly detain the Bernals to ask them about Ryan’s location.”
Selna further detailed the interactions between officers and the Bernals, including one officer pointing a gun at William when they say he reached into a bag, then holstering his weapon when he realized William was holding a phone. The parties and a witness agreed the officer quickly saw there was no gun, though there was disagreement over the degree to which William resisted detention and the amount of force officers deployed.
After the physical struggle ended, Willam said the son was at the grandmother’s house and the family led deputies to the location. Folsom police arrested the boy, who pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor for the threat.
“He was also charged with, but was not convicted of and did not plead guilty to, unlawfully possessing a firearm,” Selna wrote.
Citing a 1979 U.S. Supreme Court opinion, Brown v. Texas, the panel said “because the Bernals were detained but not arrested, the reasonableness of their detention ‘depends ‘on a balance between the public interest and the individual’s right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers.’ ”
In looking at the gravity of the public concern regarding a potential school shooting and the degree to with officers interfered with the Bernals’ individual liberty, the panel determined full summary judgment for the defendants was not appropriate. The Bernals argued the officers should’ve lost their detention authority once Celia said she did not wish to continue speaking, but the panel said the specific circumstances force a different conclusion.
Broadly, the panel said, police cannot detain people without reasonable suspicion of their own criminal conduct. The Ninth Circuit has never “upheld a suspicionless witness detention because the government’s interests in solving crime did not outweigh the individuals’ liberty interests,” Selna wrote. But in this case, he continued “the deputies had limited authority to briefly detain and question the Bernals about Ryan’s location due primarily to the exigencies inherent in preventing an imminent school shooting.”
The two main reasons, Selna wrote, are the officers’ knowledge the boy’s parents knew his location and “there was an ongoing emergency threatening numerous lives which required immediate action.” The panel noted the incident happened within weeks of a highly publicized mass shooting at a school in Parkland, Florida, and said “we believe this to be precisely the type of exigency contemplated by the Supreme Court in approving suspicionless witness detentions.”
Although the panel said officers’ rights to detention are limited, it ruled the brief interactions with Celia did not exceed those bounds. However, it also agreed officers improperly “used a significant amount of force to restrain William who was unarmed and compliant with the deputies’ lawful orders.”
Under California law, Selna wrote, even complete refusal to cooperate with police doesn’t give officers the right to detail unless they have additional information. He said the question of “whether the deputies’ commands to William were lawful” presents a factual dispute suitable for trial, not summary judgment.
“Verbally challenging and recording officers are not illegal actions, and thus orders to cease such actions are not lawful orders,” Selna wrote. “When William did not comply with the deputies’ orders to put his phone down and stop yelling, he was not disobeying a lawful command. Accordingly, the deputies were not acting lawfully when they restrained William, negating any probable cause they had to arrest him for resisting.”
The panel further said that while Judge England agreed with the officers’ contentions about reasonably fearing for their safety, given William Bernal’s physical size and the fact he reached into a bag, the Bernals argued William never reached into a bag — holding his phone with both hands — and the plaintiffs’ version of events deserved at least equal weight. Further, Selna wrote, the deputies had already conducted a weapons check and found no guns registered to the address or any criminal history for William.
“Despite knowing the object William held posed no danger to them or others, the deputies proceeded to use a substantial amount of force to restrain William, injuring him in the process,” Selna wrote. “Based on their own admissions, the deputies could not have reasonably believed that William, a non-suspect witness, posed such a threat to officer safety that would require the level of force the deputies used on William.”
Finally, the panel said that even if it fully accepted the officers’ version of the events, it would still assess a violation of constitutional rights and the officers “are not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to William.”
The panel reversed Judge England’s summary judgment with respect to William Bernal’s Fourth Amendment claims and reinstated his pending claims of state law violations.
Matthew Becker, of Becker Law Practice, Sacramento, represented the Bernals.
The police officers and agencies are represented by Nicole Cahill and Van Longyear, of Longyear & Lavra, of Sacramento.