Summary
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity to Phoenix police officers in an excessive-force action arising from the use and transportation of a prone, hogtied RIPP restraint on Ramon Timothy Lopez, who later died. The court held that placing and transporting Lopez in the restraint constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure and that, viewing the evidence in the plaintiff’s favor, a jury could find the restraint objectively unreasonable and sufficiently established by precedent to overcome qualified immunity. The court remanded for further proceedings; a partial concurrence and dissent would have granted qualified immunity to the transporting officers.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether placing Lopez in a police vehicle while he was handcuffed, face down, and held in an improperly applied RIPP restraint constituted a seizure and use of force subject to the Fourth Amendment.
- Whether, viewing the evidence in Gonzalez's favor, a reasonable jury could find that the officers' placement and transportation of Lopez in a hogtied and prone position was objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
- Whether existing precedent clearly established that maintaining a prone, helpless, and distressed arrestee in a RIPP restraint that created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury violated the Fourth Amendment.
- Whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity in the interlocutory appeal.
Holdings
- The officers' intentional placement and transportation of Lopez while he was physically restrained constituted a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes.
- A reasonable jury could find that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment by placing and transporting Lopez face down in an improperly applied RIPP restraint after he had surrendered, was helpless, and no longer posed a threat or risk of flight.
- Existing Ninth Circuit precedent clearly established that officers may not continue applying force, or refuse without cause to alleviate its harmful effects, against a prone and helpless arrestee who is restrained and exhibiting signs of medical distress or risk of asphyxia.
Key quotations
“In a situation in which an arrestee surrenders and is rendered helpless, any reasonable officer would know that a continued use of force or a refusal without cause to alleviate its harmful effects constitutes excessive force.” (5)
“We hold that existing precedent gave the officers fair warning that their decision to place and transport Lopez in a prone and RIPP-restrained position after his surrender, subjecting him to a significant risk of death or serious bodily injury from positional asphyxia, was unconstitutional.” (22)
“The officers’ continued application of force and failure to alleviate the harmful effects of the RIPP restraint against a prone subject who was in medical distress and had been rendered helpless, is unconstitutional.” (28)
Factual background
Phoenix police officers pursued and apprehended Ramon Timothy Lopez after observing erratic behavior and a foot chase. After Lopez was handcuffed and no longer resisting, an officer applied a RIPP restraint in a manner that effectively hogtied him, bending his body upward and lifting his legs toward his wrists. Despite signs of respiratory distress and medical deterioration, officers left Lopez face down over a hard plastic hump in a patrol vehicle and transported him approximately two minutes without modifying the restraint or repositioning him. Lopez was found unresponsive, could not be resuscitated, and was later pronounced dead.
Procedural history
Laura Gonzalez sued the City of Phoenix and several Phoenix police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Arizona law after Ramon Timothy Lopez died following his restraint and transport by police. The district court granted summary judgment on several claims and on force used before and including the initial RIPP application, but denied summary judgment as to force used after the RIPP application, related failure to intervene, vicarious wrongful death, and punitive damages. Defendants appealed the denial of qualified immunity in part.
Remand instructions
The district court's denial of qualified immunity was affirmed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings on the claims remaining after the district court's partial summary-judgment ruling.