LaLonde v. County of Riverside (February 25, 2000)
* Court: Ninth Circuit
* Jurisdiction: County of Riverside
* Trial Court: Against plaintiff
* Ninth Circuit Court: In favor of plaintiff
* Issues: Section 1983, qualified immunity, warrantless entry into a
home, exigent circumstances, excessive force, role of jury
LaLonde Facts
* LaLonde was at home in his apartment, together with his roommate
and her three children. It was around midnight.
* A neighbor called a sheriff's substation complaining about noise.
* When two deputies, Moquin and Horton, arrived, the neighbor said
LaLonde had been loud, was anti-cop, and had a rifle.
* The two deputies went to LaLonde's apartment; he refused to come
outside; the deputies described the neighbor's complaint; LaLonde denied
it.
* Factual versions now differ, with LaLonde saying Moquin grabbed him
and Moquin saying that LaLonde headed for the kitchen, causing Moquin to
enter.
* After Moquin entered the apartment, Moquin placed LaLonde under
arrest; LaLonde verbally refused to comply; Moquin knocked LaLonde down,
put his knee into LaLonde's back and handcuffed him. LaLonde struggled,
and Moquin pepper-sprayed LaLonde, who then ceased resisting.
* For twenty minutes or so, LaLonde received no treatment for the
pepper spray, despite Moquin's awareness of LaLonde's symptoms, i.e.,
tearing eyes, runny nose, etc.
* LaLonde claimed he continued to suffer headaches and back pain
after the incident.
* LaLonde filed a section 1983 action against the deputies and the
County.
* The district court dismissed LaLonde’s action without letting the
case go to the jury.
* The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court.
LaLonde Analysis
* The Ninth Circuit in essence wanted the case to go to the jury.
* Since the district court dismissed the case before jury
deliberations, the Ninth Circuit had to review the facts in the light
most favorable to LaLonde.
* As to the warrantless entry into the apartment, the district court
erred by only looking to see if the deputies had probable cause; the
district court should also have determined if exigent circumstances
existed.
* The deputies argued that, since they were merely conducting an
investigation, they should not be required to show probable cause. The
Ninth Circuit rejected this argument, since a home, not a public place,
was involved.
* If the deputies had arrested LaLonde in his doorway, they then
could have lawfully entered his apartment, but they arrested LaLonde
only after they entered his apartment.
* While the requirement of exigent circumstances could be met by
circumstances concerning officer safety, no such circumstances existed
here.
* The court wades through and rejects some earlier Ninth Circuit
decisions adopting a "mild exigency" requirement.
* As to the excessive force issue, LaLonde’s version of the facts
paints the deputies as using unreasonable force.
* In particular, not giving LaLonde treatment for the pepper spray
looked excessive to the court.
LaLonde Conclusion
This case illustrates the complexity of the law under section 1983
and the judicial predilection to have these cases submitted to juries, a
trend which may not bode well for LDF participants. The dissent summed
it up:
"The level of excruciating detail to which the majority opinion
must resort to answer the question of whether Officer Moquin’s actions
at the doorway of John LaLonde’s apartment were reasonable illustrates
one of the serious and perplexing problems police officers face when
they attempt in the field to enforce our laws; intricacies of the Fourth
Amendment can hope to divine the correct answers. The majority’s
scholarly solution is certainly impressive, but rendering it makes one
wonder how a police officer faced with unknown protagonists and
antagonists in unfamiliar and potentially hostile circumstances can be
expected to react to an extemporaneous drama while at the same moment
measuring split second occurrences in constitutional terms. In cold
print, the events of July 21, 1996, appear one way, but as they were
unfolding two and a half years ago, they surely had a different case and
immediacy."
