Deadly Force Over Recyclables? The 9th Circuit's Surprising Ruling in Garcia v. City of Tustin

In a decision that’s already raising eyebrows among law enforcement professionals, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Garcia v. City of Tustin (2025) that a civil rights lawsuit against a police officer must go to a jury — despite the presence of bodycam footage and a claim of qualified immunity.

The incident occurred in August 2021 when officers responded to reports of a homeless man, Luis Garcia, living in the bushes near a mobile home park in Tustin, California. Garcia, who had been arrested previously for violent offenses, emerged from the hedge holding a five-foot wooden pole — a tool he allegedly used to collect aluminum cans.

Despite multiple commands to drop the pole, Garcia continued to hold it. Officers, perceiving a threat, tased him. While Garcia was still under the effects of the Taser, and still holding the pole, one officer fired her gun — once initially, then again fatally — when Garcia appeared to move toward another officer.

Garcia’s family sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force and due process violations. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the officer, citing qualified immunity. However, the Ninth Circuit reversed that decision in part. In a 2-1 ruling, the court said there were genuine disputes of material fact — including whether the pole qualified as a deadly weapon and whether Garcia’s movements were threatening or involuntary due to the Taser.

The court emphasized that even with video evidence, summary judgment isn't appropriate when factual disputes remain. According to the majority, precedent like Longoria v. Pinal County (2017) clearly establishes that the use of deadly force is unconstitutional when a suspect doesn't pose an immediate threat of death or serious injury — a determination the court felt must be left to a jury.

In a sharply worded dissent, Judge Bennett argued that the video clearly supported the officer’s version and that the threat Garcia posed — given his proximity and refusal to drop the pole — was enough to justify deadly force. He emphasized that bodycam evidence can, and should, resolve factual disputes at summary judgment when the footage is unambiguous.

This case is a wake-up call for law enforcement: even with bodycam footage, courts may still defer to juries when material facts — like threat perception, movement, and resistance — are contested. The decision highlights the ongoing tension between judicial gatekeeping and jury fact-finding in qualified immunity cases.

Key Takeaways for Officers:

• Qualified immunity doesn’t guarantee dismissal — even with video.

• Courts may prioritize jury determination when facts are unclear or disputed.

• Objectively reasonable force must be reassessed in light of every detail — suspect behavior, officer commands, weapon type, and proximity.

• Training should include emphasis on how even non-traditional "weapons" (e.g., poles, tools) are viewed legally.

• Expect greater legal scrutiny when Taser deployment overlaps with use of lethal force.

As use-of-force law continues to evolve, cases like Garcia v. City of Tustin show that officers must be prepared not just tactically, but legally — and ready to justify every decision, frame by frame.

📌 More case breakdowns and tactical law updates at tacticsandtrials.com