Yount v. City of Sacramento

Yount v. City of Sacramento
Court	Supreme Court of California
Full case name	Steven Yount v. City of Sacramento, et al.
Decided	May 19 2008
Citation(s)	43 Cal.4th 885 183 P.3d 471
Holding
The plaintiff’s claims were barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994), to the extent that they alleged that the defendant officer was not entitled to use any level of force against the plaintiff because the plaintiff’s acts of kicking, spitting, and refusing to cooperate with the officers justified the officers in using reasonable force to subdue him. However, the plaintiff’s claims were not barred under Heck v. Humphrey to the extent that they alleged that the defendant officer was not justified in using deadly force against the plaintiff in response to the plaintiff’s acts of resistance.
Court membership
Chief Judge	Ronald M. George
Associate Judges	Marvin A. Baxter, Joyce L. Kennard, Ming W. Chin Carlos R. Moreno, Carol A. Corrigan, Kathryn M. Werdegar
Case opinions
Majority	Baxter, joined by George, Kennard, Chin, Moreno, and Corrigan
Concurrence	Werdegar

YOUNT v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO^[1] was a decision of the California Supreme Court which significantly expanded the rights of convicted arrestees subjected to excessive force during arrest. The case was brought by Brian T. Dunn of The Cochran Firm in California on behalf of Steven Yount^[2] when Mr. Yount was shot by a Sacramento Police Officer after being handcuffed during a DUI arrest.

Factual Background

During the early morning hours of March 10, 2001, Steven Yount, the plaintiff in the Yount case, left his home, got into his car, and drove to a 7-Eleven store in Sacramento, California for the purpose of purchasing alcohol. Mr. Yount had already consumed beer and liquor that morning, and was very drunk. A security guard in the parking lot of the 7-Eleven called police after he observed the visibly intoxicated Mr. Yount attempting to get back into his vehicle. Sacramento Police Department Officer Samuel Davis arrived at the 7-Eleven, approached Mr. Yount’s car and asked Mr. Yount to step out of the vehicle.

Mr. Yount complied with Officer Davis’ request to get out of the car but refused to get inside Officer Davis’ patrol vehicle. After some effort, Officer Davis was able to secure Mr. Yount in the backseat of his patrol vehicle. While in the backseat of the patrol vehicle, Mr. Yount shouted obscenities and racial slurs at Officer Davis and kicked and banged his head against the side and window of the patrol vehicle.

With the assistance of two security guards in the area, Officer Davis was able to pull Mr. Yount out of the patrol vehicle, handcuff him, and place him back inside the patrol vehicle. After Mr. Yount was placed back inside the patrol vehicle, he continued to shout and kick and bang his head against the doors of the vehicle. Sacramento Police Department Officers Debra Hatfield, Daniel Swafford, and Thomas Schrum responded to the 7-Eleven to assist Officer Davis.

Officer Schrum opened the door of Officer Davis’ patrol vehicle to ask Mr. Yount for identification. When Officer Schrum opened the door of the patrol vehicle, Mr. Yount popped out of the vehicle, attempted to move right in Officer Schrum’s face, and continued to yell and curse at the officers. Officer Schrum forced Mr. Yount back into the patrol vehicle. Mr. Yount continued yelling obscenities at the officers and banging on the patrol vehicle while kicking his legs at Officer Schrum. Officer Swafford tased Mr. Yount.

After Officer Swafford deployed the Taser, Mr. Yount became more violent and continued to yell obscenities and racial slurs at the officers. Mr. Yount also kicked out the window of Officer Davis’ patrol vehicle. The officers decided to restrain Mr. Yount’s legs before placing him into a different patrol vehicle. When they attempted to pull Mr. Yount out of Officer Davis’ patrol vehicle, Mr. Yount refused to cooperate and resisted the officers’ efforts to remove him from the vehicle.

The officers eventually managed to pull Mr. Yount out of Officer Davis’ patrol vehicle. After the officers pulled Mr. Yount out of the patrol vehicle, Officer Davis stumbled and fell to the ground and Mr. Yount kicked him and spat at him. Officer Davis got on top of Mr. Yount, who was continuing to struggle and shout, and the officers were able to successfully secure Mr. Yount’s legs with ankle restraints. Mr. Yount continued to resist the officers by kicking and spitting at them. Officer Schrum pulled out what he thought was a Taser, and fired it at the back of Mr. Yount’s thigh. After firing at Mr. Yount, Officer Schrum realized that he had mistakenly grabbed his firearm instead of his Taser. Mr. Yount sustained a gunshot wound to his left buttock.

Procedural Background

After the incident, Mr. Yount was charged with resisting arrest in violation of California Penal Code § 148, and driving under the influence. Mr. Yount pleaded no contest to these charges, and was convicted of both offenses. Following the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, Brian T. Dunn, an attorney at The Cochran Firm specializing in civil rights cases, filed a civil action on Mr. Yount’s behalf against Officer Schrum and the City of Sacramento in the Sacramento County Superior Court, alleging a claim for violation of Mr. Yount’s civil rights under Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code, among others. The complaint alleged that Officer Schrum shot Mr. Yount without justification, in violation of Mr. Yount’s constitutional rights.

The defendants argued that Mr. Yount’s 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim constituted a collateral attack on Mr. Yount’s conviction for resisting arrest, and was thus barred under Heck v. Humphrey,^[3] 512 U.S. 477, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994), a United States Supreme Court decision which held that a plaintiff is barred from prosecuting a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action if the successful resolution of the action would necessarily imply the invalidity of a criminal conviction of the plaintiff.

The issue of whether a finding in favor of Mr. Yount on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim would “necessarily imply the invalidity” of his criminal conviction for resisting arrest was submitted to the California Supreme Court for decision. The appeal was briefed and argued by Mr. Dunn. The California Supreme Court held that Mr. Yount’s civil claims were barred to the extent that they alleged that Officer Schrum was not entitled to use any force during the incident, because Mr. Yount’s resistance justified the use of reasonable force in response to his actions. The Court further held, however, that Mr. Yount’s civil claims were not barred as to Officer Shrum’s use of deadly force because Officer Schrum’s use of deadly force against Mr. Yount was not reasonable under the circumstances, and Mr. Yount’s conviction for resisting arrest did not, by itself, provide a justification for Officer Schrum’s use of deadly force against Mr Yount.

In holding that success on Mr. Yount’s claim of excessive deadly force would not necessarily imply the invalidity of Mr. Yount’s conviction for resisting arrest, the California Supreme Court analyzed the relationship between Mr. Yount’s acts of resistance and Officer Schrum’s misconduct. The Court began its analysis by noting that Officer Schrum was justified in using “reasonable force” against Mr. Yount, who was kicking, spitting, and refusing to cooperate with the officers in the moments prior to the shooting. Consequently, to the extent that Mr. Yount’s claims alleged that he was not resisting or obstructing the officers and that the officers were not justified in using any level of force against him, those claims would be inconsistent with Mr. Yount’s conviction for resisting and thus barred under Heck.

The California Supreme Court also noted, however, that Mr. Yount had alleged that Officer Schrum’s use of deadly force was excessive under the circumstances and not justified by Mr. Yount’s acts of resistance during the incident. The Court held that to the extent Mr. Yount’s claims were based on Officer Schrum’s unjustifiable use of deadly force, those claims were not barred under Heck because the evidence in the case did not support the use of deadly force against Mr. Yount, and Mr. Yount’s criminal conviction for resisting arrest, standing alone, did not establish a justification for Officer Schrum’s use of deadly force against Mr. Yount. Accordingly, Mr. Yount’s claim that Officer Schrum’s use of deadly force was not a reasonable response to Mr. Yount’s acts of resistance did not call the validity of his conviction for resisting arrest into question.

The California Supreme Court’s decision in the Yount v. City of Sacramento case has been followed by a number of courts confronted with cases involving similar facts, including the California Court of Appeals, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and federal district courts within California.

References

External links

• Link to full text of case In PDF format