“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
A person challenged police for using excessive force in arresting him by pointing their guns directly at his head from point-blank range despite his lack of resistance or other imminent threat.
What happened in this case?
Two police officers had a felony arrest warrant against Alex Medrano. They approached him with guns drawn, and pointed their guns directly at his head from point-blank range, three to five feet away, although he was apparently compliant and was not actively resisting or threatening. Medrano sued the officers for excessive force. The district court refused to grant summary judgment to the officers on qualified immunity grounds, explaining that a jury could find that the officers had pointed their guns directly at Medrano’s head at close range, and that this could be found to be a “clear violation of an established constitutional right” under the circumstances.
The officers appealed to the Ninth Circuit. In September, Trump judge Patrick Bumatay cast the deciding vote in a 2-1 ruling that reversed the district court and granted immunity to the officers in Medrano v Acosta. George W Bush judge Consuelo Callahan wrote the majority opinion, and maintained that there was a possible threat to the officers and that their behavior clearly did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Clinton judge Richard Paez dissented.
Why did Judge Paez dissent?
Based on a careful review of the facts and the law, Judge Paez found that the majority’s conclusion that the officers’ decision to point their weapons at Medrano was “objectively reasonable” and that “no rational jury could conclude otherwise” was clearly “flawed.” He criticized the majority for relying on “non-violent acts long predating” the arrest as warranting the police decision to treat Medrano as “imminently dangerous.” On balance, he concluded, a “rational jury” could conclude that the officers had behaved improperly and finding against Medrano as a matter of law was incorrect.
Why is this decision harmful?
The decision made possible by Trump judge Bumatay obviously harmed Alex Medrano and his effort to obtain justice for the police misconduct. It also sets a bad precedent on the use of excess force by police, particularly in the Ninth Circuit, which includes California, Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. In addition, the decision illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.