AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Civil Liability of
Law Enforcement Agencies & Personnel
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
SWAT Issues
Monthly
Law Journal Article: Civil
Liability for SWAT Operations, 2007 (7) AELE Mo. L.J. 101.
Monthly
Law Journal Article: Long v. Honolulu Police
Sharpshooter Decision, 2008 (5) AELE Mo. L.J. 501.
A lawsuit was filed on behalf of a two-year-old girl who allegedly suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a result of the blast of a flash-bang grenade in her residence. The plaintiffs claimed that the officers in a SWAT team, even though they knew that the homicide suspect they sought was already in custody, broke open the screen door of the suspect’s residence and threw a flash-bang grenade into the living room before a young woman could open the door with keys she was holding. The only people inside the home were three women and a two-year-old girl. The girl suffered PTSD from the officers' use of the flash-bang grenade. A federal appeals court ruled that the SWAT team officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. Any reasonable officer would have known that the use of a flash-bang in these circumstances while executing a knock and announce warrant was excessive force. It was clearly established that the use of a flash-bang grenade was unreasonable when officers have no basis to believe they will face a threat of violence and when they unreasonably fail to determine whether there are any innocent bystanders in the area where the grenade will be deployed. Defendant police detectives, however, were entitled to summary judgment because there was probable cause to support the search warrant, even considering the omitted information, and because their decision to use a SWAT team, regardless of whether it was reasonable, did not violate clearly established law. Z. J. v. Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners, #17-3365, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 22205, 2019 WL 3330459 (7th Cir.).
An
informant told police that a man was engaged in selling crack cocaine from his
apartment and answered his door with a handgun in hand. A SWAT team executed a
“High Risk Warrant Services” form. Their
plan for the raid called for a "dynamic entry" by 20 officers to
secure the premises within 30 seconds and authorized the use of flashbang
grenades. At the time of the raid, the man's mother was visiting and another of
her sons was present along with the suspect's girlfriend. The officers breached
the door with a battering ram, and one of them saw the suspect's mother move
towards the door. Another officer looked through the doorway, saw no one, and
tossed a flashbang inside. The blast severely injured the mother's leg. The
raid found narcotics and a handgun. A federal appeals court upheld a jury
verdict for the defendants on the mother's excessive force claim as supported
by the evidence. A jury statement that “While we agree that this was a horrible
instance ... the errors made by the Chicago Police Department as a whole cannot
fall on the shoulders of these two defendants” was consistent with the verdict.
Flournoy v. City of Chicago, #14-3776, 2016 U.S. App.
Lexis 13343 (7th Cir.).
A police detective sought and obtained search
warrants for the homes of several gang members, based on information that the
gang was involved in a drive-by shooting and had a practice of storing the
weapons from such shootings at the residences of members not involved in an
incident. The affidavit for one of the warrants, however, failed to disclose
that the gang member living there had been in custody continuously since a time
prior to the shooting taking place. A jury could reasonably conclude that the
detective knew about this fact from reading the member's rap sheet and
recklessly or deliberately failed to disclose it when applying for the warrant.
The detective could be liable for the search. Additionally, even "if we
were to conclude that cause existed for a search, there would still be no basis
for authorizing night-time service. A nighttime incursion by a SWAT force is a
far more serious occurrence than an ordinary daytime intrusion . . . and
therefore requires higher justification beyond mere probable cause to
search." Bravo v. City of Santa Maria, #09-55898, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis
24383 (9th Cir.).
A federal appeals court held that a police
SWAT team sniper acted in an objectively reasonable manner in shooting and
killing an armed suspect, and that neither the officer nor the city was liable
for the death. The officer, according to the court, heard the suspect threaten
to shoot police, saw him carrying a rifle, and had knowledge that he had
previously shot at a car full of people, wounding two of them. Additionally,
fellow officers had radioed that the suspect was shooting at them and yelling
threats. Under these circumstances, the officer reasonably believed that the
suspect posed an immediate danger, justifying the use of deadly force. The
court further ruled that a decision that was made to wait for a light armored
vehicle for safety reasons before entering the property where the suspect was
did not constitute deliberate indifference, even accepting the argument that
the delay may have contributed to the decedent's death. Long v. City and County
of Honolulu, No. 05-16567, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 29530 (9th Cir. 2007).
Police officers, including S.W.A.T team members,
were entitled to qualified immunity for surrounding the home of a man who had
fired shots into the air and ground nearby, entering the home forcibly without
a warrant, and using pepper gas and a flashbang in an attempt to flush him out.
Assuming that the use of a second flashbang, which burned down the house, was
excessive, it still did not violate any "clearly established right."
Factual disputes about whether the suspect was still armed and was threatening
officers at the time they shot and killed him, however, barred qualified
immunity for the officers on a claim that the use of deadly force was
excessive. Estate of Bing v. City of Whitehall, No. 05-3889, 2006 U.S. App.
Lexis 19287 (6th Cir.). [2006 LR Sep]
Police chief and SWAT team leader were entitled
to qualified immunity on claims for supervisory liability in case where SWAT
officer entering residence shot and killed a man inside the home within two
seconds, and the plaintiffs claimed that the decedent was unarmed. Nothing
showed that they made a deliberate choice to inadequately train or supervise
the officer, which caused the alleged deprivation of the decedent's rights.
Estate of Davis v. City of North Richland Hills, No. 04-10036, 2005 U.S. App.
Lexis 5893 (5th Cir.) [2005 LR Jun]
Police officers' shooting and killing of homeless
mentally ill man sitting in a car was not excessive force when they acted after
he raised a gun and did not know, until later, that the weapon was a BB gun.
Under the circumstances, it was reasonable for them to believe that their lives
were at risk. Court also rules that the officers did not engage in disability
discrimination when they called on a SWAT team to extract the man from his car
after the shooting, causing a delay in medical treatment. The officers could
reasonably do this to ensure the safety of themselves and others at the scene.
Ali v. City of Louisville, No. Civ. A. 3:03CV-427, 395 F. Supp. 2d 527 (W.D.
Ky. 2005). [N/R]
Federal appeals panel rejects a gender
discrimination suit by a vice sergeant who failed the fitness test when her job
was combined with the SWAT unit into a special enforcement unit. Male vice
officers had to pass the same test. Stahl v. Bd. of Cmsnrs. of Unif. Govt.
Wyandotte Co./Kansas City, KS, #03-3068, 101 Fed. Appx. 316, 2004 U.S. App.
Lexis 11476 (10th Cir. Unpub. 2004), affirming 244 F.Supp.2d 1181 (D. Kan.
2003). [2004 FP Oct]
Occupants of a home mistakenly identified in a
search warrant and subjected to a no-knock search by members of a Special
Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team presented an arguable issue as to whether the
city's policies or lack of policies concerning the issuance of no-knock search
warrants caused a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. Because of the
"hyper-intrusive" nature of such searches, the court comments, the
government should show more than the standard requirement of probable cause to
obtain such a warrant. At the same time, the court rejected the argument that
the city was required to demand that the officer in charge of an investigation
personally provide visual verification of the address in a search warrant,
finding that a policy of allowing such verification by other officers was
reasonable. Solis v. City of Columbus, No. 2:02-CV-788, 319 F. Supp. 2d 797
(S.D. Ohio 2004).[N/R]
Sheriff and SWAT team members were not entitled
to qualified immunity for death of man shot and killed in his home after he
resisted being taken into custody for a psychiatric evaluation. If plaintiff's
factual allegations were true, and decedent was in the process of surrendering
when he was shot and killed, use of deadly force against him was clearly
excessive. Warrantless entry into the home when the man had "not
committed" any crimes and there was no immediate need to subdue him was
"reckless" and an excessive use of force. Federman v. County of Kern,
No. 01-16691, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 7180 (9th Cir.). [2003 LR Jun]
Family of former police officer and Vietnam vet with
post-traumatic stress disorder, who died in the woods near his home after
fleeing there in response to activation of SWAT-like team around his residence
after officers saw a "red light" coming from a window in the home,
presented sufficient evidence to create a jury question as to whether
activation of SWAT team and its tactics created a foreseeable danger to the
decedent in a manner shocking to the conscience. Estate of Smith v. Marasco,
#02-1437, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 1432 (3rd Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Mar]
Bar owner held liable for $4.5 million to
injuries off-duty officer suffered from attack by patron when he went there to
celebrate his graduation from SWAT team training. Zelaya v. U.S. Euro Micro
Ventures, No. 00-32681(6), Miami-Dade County, Fla., Circuit Court, Feb. 26,
2002, reported in The National Law Journal, p. B4, May 13, 2002. [2002 LR Aug]
344:121 $3.5 million settlement in shooting death
of man who grabbed an unloaded rifle when members of a SWAT team entered his
home while executing a search warrant. Heard v. Board of County Commissioners
of Miami County, No. 00-2173-JWL, U.S. Dist. Ct. (D. Kan.), reported in The
National Law Journal, p. A6 (May 14, 2001), and in 44 ATLA Law Rptr. No. 5, p.
170 (June 2001).
329:70 Miami reaches $2.5 million settlement in
death of 72-year-old man in his bedroom during SWAT team raid on his apartment
in which 122 shots were fired; officers asserted that decedent fired two shots
at them after they properly knocked and announced they were executing search
warrant; plaintiffs asserted that gun and drugs were "planted" by officers
to "coverup" misconduct, and that officers did not properly announce
their identity as police. Brown v. City of Miami, U.S. Dist. Ct. Miami, Fla.,
reported in The National Law Journal, p. A10 (March 27, 2000).
315:42 Widow of SWAT officer shot and killed by
fellow officer during raid could sue shooting officer and city for violation of
federal civil rights; federal appeals court rejects argument that case was
about a "safe workplace"; shooting officer not entitled to qualified
immunity. Jensen v. City of Oxnard, #97-55936, 145 F.3d 1078, 1998 U.S. App.
Lexis 10589 (9th Cir.); cert. den. 1998 U.S. Lexis 7596.
Woman LAPD officer, excluded from the SWAT unit,
wins $2.3 mill. for discrimination and harassment. Damianakes v. City of L.A.,
L.A.Co.Super.Ct. #BC101094, 109 (45) L.A.D.J. V&S 4, 34 (1664) G.E.R.R.
(BNA) 671, 39 (9) ATLA Law Rptr. 357 (1996). [1996 FP 126]
237:136 Wisconsin Supreme court rules that county
and sheriff discharged duty, under state law, to provide appropriate medical
care and treatment to detainee by having him examined by nurse when he
complained of possible appendix problem, despite fact that nurse recommended no
immediate treatment at that time and that surgical removal of appendix became
necessary a day later after detainee's release. Swatek v. Co. of Dane, 531
N.W.2d 45 (Wis. 1995).
Firefighter awarded $179,000 in damages for false
imprisonment based on police SWAT team's simulated "terrorist
takeover" of fire station designed to test and drill firefighters'
response to such incidents; firefighter was not informed that it was a drill
and suffered medical expenses, lost time from work, and mental pain and
suffering. Schultes v. Village of Addison, No. 89 C-7710, U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D.
Ill., reported in Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, P. 20 (March 1, 1993).
County and sheriff not liable for death of
courthouse hostage based on sheriff's alleged order that city SWAT and hostage
negotiation teams leave; his replacement of them with county personnel not
trained for SWAT or hostage negotiation duties did not violate any
constitutional rights of hostage; no constitutional duty to have a SWAT team or
trained hostage negotiators Salas v. Carpenter, 980 F.2d 299 (5th Cir. 1992).
Deployment of SWAT team and shooting of mentally
ill woman to get her to submit to involuntary treatment was not an
"unreasonable seizure" in light of the fact that she had threatened
to shoot officers and swung a butcher knife at one officer Williams v. Richmond
County, Ga, 804 F.Supp. 1561 (S.D.Ga 1992).
Officer's use of SWAT team and searching
furniture and behind wall coverings while executing search warrant for business
records upon radio station was not unreasonable; plaintiff showed no
unconstitutional policy by city; prosecutor who participated in search was
absolutely immune Pachaly v. City of Lynchburg, 897 F.2d 723 (4th Cir. 1990).
Woman police officer, rejected for SWAT unit
because of her sex, settles claim against city. Offer of back pay differential
is accepted; her personnel file also corrected. [Patricia] Foust v. City of
Oshkosh, Wis. Div. of Equal Rights (June, 1990).