Scott v. Smith: Ninth Circuit Rules Bodyweight Restraint Was Deadly Force

The Scott v. Smith decision, issued on July 30, 2024, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, represents a pivotal shift in how courts view the application of force—particularly when officers interact with individuals experiencing a mental health crisis.

Case Background

Roy Scott, a mentally ill man in clear distress, called 911 reporting armed intruders. Officers Kyle Smith and Theodore Huntsman of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department responded. Scott complied with officers' commands, including dropping a club and revealing a knife in his pocket. Importantly, Scott was not suspected of any crime and posed no apparent threat.

Despite his compliance, officers used force to restrain him so they could transport him to a medical facility. He was taken to the ground and restrained using bodyweight force—primarily on his back and near his neck—while prone. Shortly after being handcuffed, Scott lost consciousness and was later pronounced dead.

Scott’s daughter and estate sued, alleging excessive force and a violation of familial association rights.

The Ninth Circuit’s Ruling

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity for the officers on the Fourth Amendment excessive force claim, holding that:

• Scott posed no threat.

• He was compliant and mentally ill.

• The use of physical force—including bodyweight compression—was constitutionally excessive.

The court classified the officers’ restraint technique as potentially deadly force, emphasizing that bodyweight compression on a prone individual can cause compression asphyxia—a condition capable of causing death or serious injury.

This ruling heavily relied on Drummond v. City of Anaheim, a prior Ninth Circuit case, where the court had already established that applying pressure to the back and neck of a prone, non-threatening, mentally ill individual was unconstitutional.

Two-Prong Qualified Immunity Analysis

The court applied the standard two-prong test:

1. Was there a constitutional violation?
   Yes — the court found a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.

2. Was the right clearly established at the time?
   Yes — citing Drummond, the court held that officers should have known the force used was excessive.

Ruling on the Fourteenth Amendment

In contrast, the court reversed the denial of qualified immunity on the Fourteenth Amendment familial association claim brought by Scott’s daughter. While the court agreed her rights were violated, it held that those rights were not clearly established at the time, granting immunity to the officers on that aspect.

Implications for Law Enforcement

This decision is a critical reminder that:

• Use-of-force standards may differ significantly when dealing with individuals in a mental health crisis.

• Hands-on restraint can now be viewed as deadly force, depending on the context.

• Agencies must ensure their training reflects current case law, particularly concerning bodyweight restraints and interactions with mentally ill individuals.

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling reinforces a “two-track” approach to use of force: one for individuals in mental crisis and another for typical suspects. Agencies operating within the Ninth Circuit should reevaluate their policies, especially for restraint techniques during medical or psychological welfare calls.

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