City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan

Incident Summary & Facts

In August 2008, Teresa Sheehan, who has schizoaffective disorder, lived in a group home for people with mental illness. She had stopped taking her medication. When social worker Heath Hodge entered her room for a welfare check, she yelled, “I have a knife, and I’ll kill you if I have to.” Hodge cleared the building, applied to have her detained for evaluation (marking her a “threat to others”), and called police. Officer Kathrine Holder and Sergeant Kimberly Reynolds knocked, identified themselves, and said “we want to help you.” When Sheehan did not answer, they entered with Hodge’s key. Sheehan grabbed a kitchen knife with an approximately 5-inch blade, approached them, and threatened to kill them. The officers, whose weapons were not drawn, retreated, and Sheehan shut the door.

The officers called for backup and could already hear sirens. But they worried that Sheehan, out of sight in her second-floor room, might gather more weapons (Reynolds had seen other knives there) or escape, possibly by a fire escape. Reynolds believed the situation “required [their] immediate attention.” With pistols drawn, they forced the door. Sheehan, knife in hand, again yelled at them to leave. She later conceded “it was her intent to resist arrest and to use the knife.” Reynolds pepper-sprayed her in the face, but she would not drop the knife and kept coming. When she was “only a few feet” from a cornered Officer Holder, Holder shot her twice. She did not fall, and Reynolds fired multiple more shots. A third officer kicked the knife away. Sheehan survived.

Procedural posture: Sheehan sued San Francisco under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and sued the officers under § 1983. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The Ninth Circuit vacated in part and denied qualified immunity, reasoning that a jury could find the officers provoked the confrontation by forcing a second entry with no objective need. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Core Legal Issue

(1) Does Title II of the ADA require officers to accommodate an armed, violent, mentally ill suspect while taking her into custody? (2) Were the officers entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claim for reentering the room instead of accommodating her disability?

The Holding

The Court dismissed the ADA question as improvidently granted. It held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they violated no clearly established Fourth Amendment right. The Ninth Circuit was reversed in part and the case remanded.

The Court’s Analysis:

• ADA question dismissed: San Francisco abandoned the argument it had made below, that Title II does not apply to an armed, violent suspect, and argued a new “direct threat” theory instead. The Court declined to decide whether the ADA governs arrests without adversarial briefing.
• Both entries were lawful: The first entry fell within the emergency-aid exception (Brigham City). Had Sheehan not been disabled, the second entry would also have been lawful, both as part of one continuous seizure and because police may move quickly when delay “would gravely endanger their lives or the lives of others.”
• The force was reasonable: Pepper spray failed, and Sheehan kept advancing until she was a few feet from a cornered officer. At that point, “the use of potentially deadly force was justified,” including multiple rounds.
• No clearly established law: Graham is “far too general,” and in any event “a nonstarter”: it involved no dangerous, unstable person, threats, or weapon. Deorle involved an unarmed, compliant person. Alexander has been read narrowly. Under the Ninth Circuit’s own law, an entry that is otherwise lawful does not become unreasonable because it provokes a violent reaction. A plaintiff cannot establish a violation “based merely on bad tactics that result in a deadly confrontation that could have been avoided.”
• Training departures: An expert’s opinion that the officers did not follow crisis-intervention training (respecting the subject’s “comfort zone,” using time) “does not itself negate qualified immunity.” Persuasive authority, if anything, favors the officers.
• Partial dissent (Scalia, J., joined by Kagan, J.): He would have dismissed both questions as improvidently granted. In his view, San Francisco used a “bait-and-switch,” and the Court should not reward it.