Ninth Circuit Rules on Mental Health & Use of Force: What Officers Must Know

Police officers today are increasingly called to respond to mental health crises. These calls are often unpredictable, emotional, and legally complex. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued several landmark rulings that clarify how mental health factors into the Fourth Amendment’s “reasonableness” standard for use of force. Understanding these decisions is critical for officers, trainers, and agencies seeking to reduce liability and improve outcomes.

One of the earliest and most influential cases was Deorle v. Rutherford (2001). In that case, officers confronted an emotionally disturbed man who had threatened himself and others but was unarmed at the moment he was shot with a beanbag round. The court held that firing without warning was excessive, emphasizing that when it is clear a subject is in crisis, officers must temper their response, provide warnings, and use less intrusive tactics when feasible.

In Drummond v. City of Anaheim (2003), officers pinned down a mentally ill man who was handcuffed and prone, causing catastrophic brain injury. The court stressed that compressive force on a restrained and non-resisting person violates clearly established law. This case underscored the dangers of positional asphyxia, especially during medical holds.

The theme of de-escalation continued in Glenn v. Washington County (2011). There, officers used beanbag rounds and lethal force against a suicidal teenager holding a knife to his throat. The court ruled that the government’s interest is lower when the threat is primarily to the individual themselves. Time, space, and communication are crucial in these encounters.

More recent cases, like Scott v. Smith (2024), reaffirmed the Ninth Circuit’s position. When officers applied body-weight compression to a man in crisis detained for medical evaluation—not a crime—he died at the scene. The court denied qualified immunity, holding that such force against a non-threatening, mentally ill person was clearly excessive.

Taken together, these rulings make the Ninth Circuit’s expectations clear:

• Mental health must be factored into use-of-force analysis.

• Clear warnings and de-escalation are required when feasible.

• Compression force on restrained individuals is considered deadly force.

• Immediate escalation against suicidal subjects is often unreasonable.

For officers, this means that responding to mental health calls is not just about tactics—it’s about constitutional law. Agencies should invest in training, policies, and partnerships with medical professionals to ensure officers are not placed in legally risky situations. As the Ninth Circuit reminds us, these calls are fundamentally different, and the courts will hold law enforcement accountable when responses fall short.

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