A multi-vehicle crash in Los Angeles led to the shooting death of Daniel Hernandez, the man whose pick-up truck caused the accident. The confrontation between Hernandez and Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) Officer Tori McBride took place in April 2020, when she and other LAPD officers arrived at the scene of the accident. When McBride arrived, she was quickly told that the black pick-up was still occupied and that “the male suspect was armed with a knife.”

After several warnings, McBride approached the pick-up and saw Hernandez climb out of the window on the passenger side of the car. McBride told him to show his hands, but he kept yelling and coming toward her. When he was about 40 feet from her, the office fired two warning shots. He fell to his knees, but when he tried to stand, McBride fired two more shots. Hernandez hit the ground and landed on his back. She fired a fifth shot when Hernandez tried to roll over. She fired a sixth shot as he started to collapse to the ground.

Hernandez died of his injuries, and a pathologist reported that McBride’s fourth and sixth shots caused his death. In June 2020, Hernandez's parents and minor daughter (collectively “the estate”) filed separate actions against McBride and the LAPD that alleged the shooting violated U.S. Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment constitutional protections in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983 that gives “rights and privileges” to any person who has been deprived of rights “secured by the Constitution and laws.” It holds the person who deprived another of his or her rights is liable in actions at law or in equity. The estate’s two cases were later consolidated.

In addition, the plaintiffs (all members of Hernandez’s estate) also filed state law claims for assault, wrongful death, and violation of the Bane Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1), which forbids people from interfering with persons’ civil rights by force or threat of violence.

In August 2021, Presiding District Judge Stanley Blumenthal of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims, ruling that McBride didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment by using use excessive force, and even if she did, she was still “entitled to qualified immunity.” He also ruled that there was no Fourteenth Amendment violation because McBride’s actions did not “shock the conscience as a matter of law.” The State Bane Act charges were dismissed for similar reasons.

Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where Justice Daniel P. Collins authored a unanimous opinion on March 21 with concurrences by Justices Milan D. Smith and Kenneth K. Lee. Collins’ opinion began with the alleged Fourth Amendment protections against using “deadly force,” which is to be judged by a “reasonableness standard.” He explained that this test requires fact-finders to consider several factors, including the “relationship between the need for force and the amount of force used; the extent of plaintiff’s injury any effort made by the officer to temper the amount of force; the severity of the security problem at issue; the threat reasonably perceived by the officer; and whether the plaintiff was actively resisting.”

Using these criteria, the opinion concluded that McBride’s decision to fire one shot at Hernandez was reasonable, since he had a knife and continued to move toward her after she told him not to. The second through fourth shots were also found to be reasonable, since he still held the knife and continued to approach her. However, Collins then said that the “reasonableness” of the fifth and sixth shots that occurred after Hernandez “had sufficiently been halted” should have raised a question for the triers of fact. He concluded that Judge Blumenthal “erred in granting summary judgment on that issue.”

That said, McBride countered that even if a reasonable jury found she used excessive force, she is still entitled to qualified immunity. The Ninth Circuit agreed, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedents that ruled “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officers from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Collins said that while this is true, the Supreme Court also ruled that “material factual differences between a case” and the cited precedents must be examined.

Collins used the video from McBride’s’ body cams to examine the facts in Hernandez’s case. He said the evidence showed that Hernandez never dropped his weapon despite McBride’s numerous instructions to do so. In addition, the Justices wrote that no precedent was sufficiently similar to the facts in Hernandez’s case and because the suspect continued to try to get up, the office deserved qualified immunity.

The opinion then turned to the estate’s Fourteenth Amendment claims, which give parents and children “a liberty interest in the companionship and society of their children” that may be compensated if the defendant’s actions “shock the conscience.” Collins explained that this shock must follow actions that were “taken with a purpose to harm without regard to legitimate law enforcement objectives.” These claims also failed since the estate could not show any evidence that McBride did not fire solely for self-defense.

Next, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment when it dismissed all of plaintiffs’ claims against the City of Los Angeles because “there could be no municipal liability” without a Constitutional violation.

Finally, plaintiffs did receive a positive ruling on their claims for assault, wrongful death, or violation of the Bane Act. Collins wrote that the only reason the district court granted summary judgment on the state claims was its “determination that Office McBride’s use of force was reasonable.” However, as stated above, McBride’s fifth and sixth shots do present a question for the trier of fact. Thus, the district court erred when it dismissed the state law claims and remanded them for further action. All summary judgments regarding federal law claims were affirmed.