Allowing civil suits by violent, weapon-wielding criminals who attack police and are shot dead has enormous societal costs and no appreciable benefits.
Indianapolis, July 31, 2024 – The National Police Association (NPA) today announced the filing of an amicus curiae brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in support of the defendant-appellees in the case of Estate of Daniel Hernandez, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al. The NPA’s brief aims to uphold the doctrine of qualified immunity, a crucial legal protection for law enforcement officers, and to defend the discretionary authority of officers in life-threatening situations.
The case, Nos. 21-55994 and 21-55995, is an appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, where the Honorable Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Los Angeles and its officers. The plaintiffs, representing the estate of Daniel Hernandez, are challenging the application of qualified immunity to the officers involved in the incident.
James L. Buchal of Murphy & Buchal LLP, representing the NPA, emphasizes the necessity of maintaining qualified immunity for police officers. “The recent scholarly attacks on qualified immunity fail to recognize the foundational importance of this doctrine in enabling law enforcement officers to make split-second decisions without the paralyzing fear of litigation,” said Buchal. “The NPA’s brief underscores the complex and dangerous nature of police work and the imperative to provide officers with the legal protections they need to perform their duties effectively.”
Summary of the NPA’s Argument:
- Rejection of Historical Attacks on Qualified Immunity: The NPA’s brief refutes the appellants’ argument against qualified immunity, highlighting that recent scholarly critiques do not justify overturning long-established immunity doctrines. The brief asserts that the original language of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 supports the continuation of qualified immunity.
- Support for the District Court’s Ruling: The NPA argues that the district court correctly upheld Officer McBride’s use of force as reasonable, given the circumstances of the encounter. The brief emphasizes the need for judicial deference to officers’ on-the-ground assessments and decisions in rapidly evolving, life-threatening situations.
- Complexity of Deadly Force Decision Making: The brief outlines the scientific and policy-based reasons for deferring to officers’ judgment in the use of deadly force. It warns against the judiciary’s micromanagement of split-second decisions made by officers when confronting armed criminals, noting that such oversight could undermine public safety and officer effectiveness.
The National Police Association is represented by James L. Buchal of Murphy & Buchal LLP. The NPA’s amicus can be viewed here.
About The National Police Association: The National Police Association is a 501(c)3 non-profit Educational/Advocacy organization. For additional information visit NationalPolice.org
