Vos v. City of Newport Beach

Incident Summary & Facts

On May 2, 2016, Newport Beach police received multiple 911 calls about a man acting erratically on a bike path near the bay. Officers arrived and found Matthew Vos walking on the path holding a knife. He appeared to be in a mental health crisis and was non-responsive to officers’ commands. He made no threatening movements toward the officers or any bystanders. All indicators suggested he was suicidal, not homicidal—he held the knife toward himself, not toward others.

Officers followed Vos on the path for several minutes, repeatedly ordering him to drop the knife. A supervisor authorized less-lethal force. Officers deployed a CEW (Taser); it was ineffective. Officers then fired their service weapons, striking Vos. He survived but suffered significant injuries. His family filed suit on his behalf under the Fourth Amendment and Title II of the ADA, alleging the force was excessive and that officers failed to accommodate his disability.

Procedural posture: The district court granted summary judgment for the officers on the Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim and on the ADA claim, finding no constitutional violation and no failure to accommodate. The Vos family appealed.

Core Legal Issue

(1) Whether officers who shot a suicidal, non-threatening man in mental health crisis—after several minutes of unsuccessful verbal commands and an ineffective CEW deployment—used objectively unreasonable force under the Fourth Amendment; and (2) whether Title II of the ADA applies to this encounter and what accommodation was required.

The Holding

Reversed and remanded on both claims. Genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claim. The ADA claim also survived because the district court had not adequately analyzed whether reasonable accommodation was feasible before the use of deadly force.

The Court’s Analysis:

• Graham factors on the facts: The crime severity factor weighed heavily for Vos—no crime was alleged and the call was a welfare check, not a criminal matter. The immediate threat factor required examination: Vos had a knife, but all evidence indicated he threatened only himself. The resistance factor was minimal—he was unresponsive and walking, not fighting or fleeing.
• Suicidal subjects and the government interest: Consistent with Deorle and Glenn, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed that where a subject poses a threat only to himself and not to others, the government’s interest in using significant force is materially diminished. The state’s asserted interest in preventing Vos from harming himself does not carry the same weight as preventing harm to third parties.
• Time and alternatives: Officers had several minutes of non-confrontational interaction before force was used. The availability of alternatives—including waiting for additional resources, repositioning, or continued verbal engagement—and the failure to fully exhaust them before escalating to deadly force were relevant to the reasonableness analysis.
• CEW ineffectiveness does not automatically authorize deadly force: The fact that less-lethal force failed does not automatically justify transition to deadly force. The court considered whether, after the CEW failed, officers had other options before shooting.
• ADA claim: The court rejected a categorical bar to ADA claims in force situations. Consistent with Sheehan (9th Cir.), where it is or should be apparent that a subject is suffering from a mental disability and no exigency precludes accommodation, officers must consider whether reasonable modifications are available. The feasibility of accommodation was a triable question.