WASHINGTON _ The Supreme Court on Monday let stand a $4 million verdict against two Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies who were searching for a fugitive and mistakenly shot an innocent homeless couple sleeping in a shed behind a Lancaster home.
The justices turned away an appeal from county lawyers who maintained the deputies responded reasonably when one of the victims reached for what turned out to be a BB gun.
Angel Mendez was shot 10 times and lost a leg below the knee. His wife, Jennifer Mendez, was shot in the upper back and hand.
They sued the deputies who shot them in 2010 and alleged violations of their constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures and excessive use of force.
A federal judge had ruled the two deputies, Christopher Conley and Jennifer Pederson, were liable for the shooting and awarded the couple $4 million. The officers had been pursuing a fugitive in the area and thought he may have been hiding behind a house. The homeowner had allowed the homeless couple to sleep in a shed on her property.
Two years ago, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment in favor of the couple and told the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider the case. At that time, the justices said they were skeptical of the notion that police could be sued for having provoked a violent incident.
The decision was a rejection of the so-called provocation rule that some lower courts, including the 9th Circuit, had used. Under that theory, police could be sued for violating a victim's constitutional rights if they provoked a confrontation that resulted in violence.
But the 9th Circuit upheld the verdict again last year and said the deputies were liable for having entered the private property without a search warrant and for having burst into the shed without announcing their presence.
Judge Ronald Gould, writing for the appeals court, said the officers who ventured onto private property without a search warrant should be held liable for the mistaken shooting, not the startled victim.
"Among the reasons why the Fourth Amendment erects a barrier to entry is that an officer might, due to a mistaken assessment of the threat, harm a person inside a residence," he wrote last year. "Persons residing in a home may innocently hold kitchen knives, cellphones, toy guns or even real ones that could be mistakenly believed by the police to pose a threat. ... Nothing about Mr. Mendez's innocent actions warrants shifting responsibility for the subsequent shooting injuries away from the officers and to the shooting victim."
This time, the Supreme Court without comment refused to hear a further appeal in Los Angeles County v. Mendez.
It is possible the justices opted not to review the case because the 9th Circuit had made clear the officers had violated the Fourth Amendment by entering the property and therefore were liable for the injuries to the couple. In addition, the appeals court said the officers were also liable under California law for "gross negligence," and that finding alone could have been an independent justification for upholding the verdict.
Leonard Feldman, a Seattle lawyer who represented the couple, said the court's decision brings an end to the case. "The Mendezes can finally recover damages for the injuries that occurred over eight years ago when police unlawfully entered their home and shot them when they rose from a nap to see who had entered their home," he said.
