What Deorle v. Rutherford Still Teaches About Use of Force Today

In 2001, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a landmark decision in Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272, that continues to shape how law enforcement agencies evaluate the use of force under the Fourth Amendment. Even more than two decades later, its lessons remain relevant to police officers, trainers, and legal professionals throughout the circuit.

The Case at a Glance

The case involved Richard Deorle, a distraught man suffering from emotional distress, who was shot in the face with a “less-lethal” beanbag round by Deputy Rutherford during a prolonged standoff. The round caused significant injury — including the loss of Deorle’s left eye. The central legal question was whether the deputy’s use of force was objectively reasonable and whether he was entitled to qualified immunity.

The Ninth Circuit held that the force used was objectively unreasonable under the Graham v. Connor standard and that qualified immunity did not apply. The decision highlighted the importance of evaluating an officer’s actions based on the totality of the circumstances — particularly the immediacy of any threat, the availability of less intrusive alternatives, and whether a warning was given before using force.

Key Legal Takeaways

1. Immediate Threat & Reasonableness:
   The Court emphasized that force is justified only when a suspect poses an immediate threat. In this case, Deorle was unarmed at the moment of the shot, was not fleeing, and had generally complied with previous police commands.

2. Warnings Matter:
   The Ninth Circuit reaffirmed that where feasible, officers must issue a clear warning before using force. The lack of such a warning weighed heavily in the Court’s finding of unreasonableness.

3. Availability of Alternatives:
   Officers are expected to consider less intrusive alternatives when time and conditions permit. In Deorle, the extended 30–40-minute standoff provided ample opportunity for other approaches — negotiation, de-escalation, or continued observation.

4. Mental Health Considerations:
   The Court made a point to note that Deorle’s mental and emotional state should have informed the officers’ response. Encounters involving emotionally disturbed individuals require tailored tactics that balance safety with compassion.

5. Qualified Immunity Limits:
   The Court held that the law was already clearly established — that using potentially lethal force against a non-assaultive, contained individual violates the Fourth Amendment.

Why This Case Still Matters

Deorle v. Rutherford remains one of the most frequently cited Ninth Circuit cases in excessive force litigation. Its analysis continues to appear in training materials, civil rights cases, and law enforcement policies addressing “less-lethal” force.

For officers in the field, Deorle serves as a reminder to slow down when possible, use time and distance as tactical advantages, communicate warnings clearly, and recognize when a call may be more medical than criminal. The case underscores that the standard of “objective reasonableness” applies not just to deadly force — but to any significant use of force decision.

Final Thoughts

Two decades later, the lessons of Deorle remain straightforward yet critical:

• Ensure that a threat is immediate and identifiable before applying force.

• Provide warnings whenever feasible.

• Consider less intrusive options when time allows.

• Account for the subject’s mental or emotional condition.

By internalizing these principles, law enforcement professionals not only reduce liability but also strengthen community trust and officer safety.