Deorle v. Rutherford

On September 9, 1996, Richard Deorle was in emotional crisis at his home in Butte County, California—upset over a Hepatitis C diagnosis, he had been drinking and taking medication, and his wife called 911 for help. At least 13 officers responded and set up roadblocks around the property. Despite being verbally abusive, Deorle was physically compliant: he dropped a board with nails when told to, threw away a hatchet when instructed, and discarded a crossbow on command. A team of trained negotiators was on its way. Deputy Greg Rutherford, a SIRT team member, positioned himself behind a tree and—without issuing any warning, command to stop, or order to drop the bottle Deorle was carrying—shot Deorle in the face with a lead-filled “beanbag” round from a 12-gauge shotgun as Deorle walked toward him at a “steady gait.” The projectile destroyed Deorle’s left eye and lodged lead shot in his skull.

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of qualified immunity and summary judgment. Applying the Graham v. Connor balancing test, the court found that the force was excessive given: (1) Deorle had committed no serious crime; (2) he posed no immediate physical threat—he was unarmed, had obeyed prior commands, and had not attacked anyone; (3) he was not fleeing; (4) negotiators trained for exactly this type of crisis were en route; and (5) Rutherford gave no warning before firing. The court emphasized that the problems posed by emotionally disturbed individuals require different tactics than those used against armed criminals, and that officers’ mental health awareness is a factor in the reasonableness analysis.

The court also held that qualified immunity did not apply even though no prior case addressed beanbag rounds specifically. The court reasoned that when an officer’s conduct is “so patently violative of the constitutional right that reasonable officials would know without guidance from the courts” that it was unconstitutional, closely analogous precedent is not required. This case is essential reading for pro se litigants because it establishes that (1) “less lethal” weapons can still constitute excessive force, (2) officers must consider alternatives and give warnings before using force that can cause serious injury, (3) the emotional or mental state of the person is a factor courts must weigh, and (4) qualified immunity does not protect officers simply because a “novel method” of inflicting injury was used.