9th Circuit deals blow to qualified immunity, revives lawsuit against LAPD officer
A federal appeals court has reversed a ruling that shielded a Los Angeles police officer from liability in a fatal shooting, a decision that experts say could have broad implications for future cases in which law enforcement officials attempt to claim protection from civil lawsuits under the doctrine known as qualified immunity.
The ruling Monday by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was the latest twist in a lawsuit against LAPD officer Toni McBride over an on-duty shooting that occurred in April 2020. McBride, who was granted medical retirement from the police department late last year, killed Daniel Hernandez after he was in a car accident in South L.A.
The shooting occurred as Hernandez, 38, walked toward McBride and her police partner while holding a box cutter, ignoring commands to drop the blade. Video footage showed McBride fire three two-bullet volleys over six seconds. The final two shots were fired while Hernandez was rolling on the ground, which attorneys for the Hernandez family argued in a lawsuit was a violation of his 4th Amendment rights.
Read more: Reversal clears LAPD officer faulted for firing two extra bullets in fatal 2020 shooting
The shooting was ultimately found to be "in policy" under the police department's standards.
Last March, a three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit ruled that even though a jury could have reasonably found McBride used excessive force, she could not be sued in federal court due to qualified immunity, a controversial legal principle that protects officers from liability over some on-duty actions.
The Hernandez family challenged the decision, leading to the reversal Monday on a 6-5 vote by the larger en banc panel of the appellate court.
The judges cited a 2017 case in Orange County as precedent, writing that 'continuing to shoot a suspect who appears to be incapacitated and no longer poses an immediate threat violates the Fourth Amendment.'
The case will now go to trial in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.
Narine Mkrtchyan, a lawyer for Hernandez's 18-year-old daughter, Melanie Hernandez, said the decision meant "justice has been served."
"Not just for this family but also for the future of shooting cases,' Mkrtchyan said. 'Officers cannot keep shooting when someone is down on the ground, period.'
McBride's father, Jamie McBride, is one of nine directors of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union that represents rank-and-file LAPD officers. He said Monday afternoon that his daughter did not have a statement on the latest development.
'In the end, when it goes to the Supreme Court or state court, I think that common sense will prevail and I think they'll agree that she acted in self-defense and she was totally justified in the force that she used," the elder McBride said. "She made the community safer by taking care of the threat that was coming at her.
A spokesperson for the LAPD did not immediately return a call seeking comment Tuesday afternoon.
While the shooting case has slowly made its way through the courts, a separate case centered on McBride's social media activity has also generated controversy. With more than 100,000 followers on Instagram, McBride built an audience by sharing pro-gun videos and content and highlighting her position and experience as an LAPD officer.
McBride alleged in a civil lawsuit that her free speech rights were violated and she was subjected to gender discrimination when she was retaliated against for her social media postings.
Read more: LAPD officer who moonlights as gun influencer loses lawsuit over social media accounts
McBride's online success made her into a 'gun influencer' who earned money for sponsored social media posts that showed her shooting firearms at training ranges and competitions, Aneta Freeman, an assistant L.A. city attorney, alleged last year during the civil trial over her online activity. McBride received free items, Freeman said, including a ballistic vest, ammo and hair extensions.
She sought $100,000 damages, claiming that she suffered 'emotional distress' as a result of the workplace dispute over her social media.
McBride dropped the gender discrimination claims, and in April 2024, she lost her free speech lawsuit when a jury ruled that she had not been treated unfairly.
McBride's attorney, Greg Smith, said Tuesday that while she lost on the free speech claim, she preserved her right to refile a retaliation action alleging that she was discriminated against because of her gender. Whether she will refile remains to be seen.
'That's completely up in the air right now; there's no lawsuit right now,' Smith said.
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Trump administration's emerging surveillance state raises privacy concerns
Trump administration's emerging surveillance state raises privacy concerns Civil liberties advocates say the Trump administration's data collection and sharing endanger Americans' constitutional rights. Show Caption Hide Caption Privacy at risk as Trump expands surveillance. Here's what we know. The Trump administration is expanding government surveillance with Big Tech's help. Here's what we know now about what's being tracked. DENVER ‒ For decades, the government has been able to watch where you drive and where you walk. It can figure out where you shop, what you buy and with whom you spend time. It knows how much money you have, where you've worked and, in many cases, what medical procedures you've had. It can figure out if you've attended a protest or bought marijuana, and it can even read your emails if it wants. But because all of those data points about you were scattered across dozens of federal, state and commercial databases, it wasn't easy for the government to easily build a comprehensive profile of your life. That's changing ‒ fast. With the help of Big Tech, in just a few short months the Trump administration has expanded the government surveillance state to a whole new level as the president and his allies chase down illegal immigrants and suspected domestic terrorists while simultaneously trying to slash federal spending they've deemed wasteful and keep foreigners from voting. And in doing so, privacy experts warn, the federal government is inevitably scooping up, sorting, combining and storing data about millions of law-abiding Americans. The vast data storehouses, some of which have been targeted for access by Elon Musk's DOGE teams, raise significant privacy concerns and the threat of cybersecurity breaches. "What makes the Trump administration's approach so chilling is that they are seeking to collect and use data across federal agencies in ways that are unprecedented," said Cody Venzke, a senior policy counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union. "The federal government's collection of data has always been a double-edged sword." Americans value their privacy Americans have fiercely guarded and worried about their privacy even from the country's earliest days: The Constitution's Fourth Amendment specifically limits the government's ability to invade a person's privacy. Those concerns have only grown as more government functions are carried out online. A 2023 survey by the Pew Research Center found that 71% of Americans worry about the government's use of data about them, up from 64% in 2019. The survey found the concern was greatest among those people who lean or consistently vote Republican, up from 63% to 77%. The level of concern among people who lean or consistently vote Democrat remained steady at 65%, the survey found. That same survey found that Americans overall are almost as concerned about government access to their data as they are about social media companies having access. People who had attended college were more worried about data privacy, while people with high school degrees were in general "confident that those who have access to their personal information will do the right thing." In acknowledgment of those concerns, the federal government carefully stores most data about Americans in separate databases, from Social Security payments to Medicare reimbursements, housing vouchers and food stamps. That limits the ability of government employees to surreptitiously build comprehensive profiles of Americans without court oversight. In the name of rooting out fraud, and government inefficiency, however, President Donald Trump in March ordered federal agencies under his control to lower the walls between their data warehouses. The Government Accounting Office estimates the federal government loses $233 billion to $521 billion to fraud annually, much of that because of improper payments to contractors or falsified medical payments, according to a GAO report in April. The report also noted significant losses via Medicare or unemployment fraud and pandemic-era stimulus payments. "Decades of restricted data access within and between agencies have led to duplicated efforts, undetected overpayments, and unchecked fraud, costing taxpayers billions," President Donald Trump said in a March 20 executive order that helped create the new system. "This executive order dismantles unnecessary barriers, promotes inter-agency collaboration, and ensures the Federal Government operates responsibly and efficiently to safeguard public funds." Merging of commercial and government databases Supporters say this kind of data archive, especially video surveillance coupled with AI-powered facial recognition, can also be a powerful tool to fight crime. Authorities in New Orleans used video footage collected by privately owned security cameras to help capture at least one of the fugitives in a high-profile prison escape in May. And systems that read license plates helped Colorado police track down a suspect accused of repeatedly vandalizing a Tesla dealership. White House authorities are now prosecuting some Tesla vandalism cases as terrorism. But the new White House efforts go far beyond anything ever attempted in the United States, allowing the government to conduct intrusive surveillance against almost anyone by combining government and commercial databases. Privacy experts say it's the merging of government and commercial databases that poses the most significant concern because much of it can be done without court oversight. As part of the broader White House effort, contractors are building a $30 million system to track suspected gang members and undocumented immigrants and buying access to a system that tracks passengers on virtually every U.S.-based airline flight. And federal officials also are making plans to compile and share state-level voting registration information, which the president argues is necessary to prevent foreign nationals from illegally voting in federal elections. Privacy experts say that while all of that data has long been collected and kept separate by different government agencies or private vendors ‒ like your supermarket frequent shopper card and cell phone provider ‒ the Trump administration is dramatically expanding its compilation into comprehensive dossiers on Americans. Much of the work has been kicked off by Musk's DOGE teams, with the assistance of billionaire Peter Thiel's Denver-based Palantir. Opponents say such a system could track women who cross state lines for abortions − something a police officer in Texas is accused of doing − or be abused by law enforcement to target political opponents or even stalk romantic partners. And if somehow accessed by hackers, the centralized systems would prove a trove of information for fraud or blackmail. The nonpartisan, nonprofit Project on Government Oversight has been warning about the risks of federal surveillance expansion for years, and it noted that Democrats and Republicans alike have voted to expand such information-gathering. "We need our leaders to recognize that as the surveillance apparatus grows, it becomes an enticing prize for a would-be autocrat," POGO said in a report in August 2024. "Our country cannot build and expand a surveillance superstructure and expect that it will not be turned against the people it is meant to protect." Starting with immigration, ending where? Trump campaigned in 2024 on a platform of tough immigration enforcement, including large-scale deportations and ending access by undocumented people to federal programs. Immigrants' rights advocates point out that people living illegally in the United States are generally barred from federal programs, although those who have children born as U.S. citizens can often access things like food assistance or health care. Supporters say having access to that data will help them prioritize people for deportation by comparing work history and tax payments to immigration status, work that used to be far more labor-intensive. Because federal officials don't know exactly who is living illegally in the United States, the systems by default must scoop up information about everyone first. One example: A newly expanded program to collect biometric data from suspected illegal immigrants intercepted at sea also can be used to collect the same information on American citizens under the vague justification of "officer safety." That data can be retained for up to 75 years, according to federal documents. "It's only a matter of time before the harmful ripples from this new effort reach other groups," Venzke said.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
'State of Firsts' documentary explores Sarah McBride's historic first months in Congress
When Rep. Sarah McBride, the nation's first openly transgender member of Congress, said in November that she would comply with a policy from House Republicans that banned her from using public women's restrooms in the House, many in the transgender community were disappointed — and some even furious. Some people expected McBride, as the only trans member of Congress, to fight more, especially given efforts by state Republicans and the Trump administration to roll back trans rights. In 'State of Firsts,' a documentary about McBride's election that will premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York City on Saturday, McBride says the criticism from some in her own community hurt but that she felt she would be giving in to Republicans by responding in a way that made her less effective at her job. 'I also think people misunderstand the difference between activists and elected officials and the roles that those respective jobs play in social change and social movement,' she says. 'Even if you disagree with that, there would be a bounty on my head if I said that I would not comply.' The documentary explores the unique pressures McBride faced entering Congress. It provides some of the first glimpses at how the bathroom resolution and the criticism from her own community has affected her, and it addresses questions about the limits and challenges of representation and of being a historic 'first' in federal office. 'It's easy to tell a simple story about a first or about a person's experience, but you don't get many lessons learned from simple stories,' McBride told NBC News ahead of the documentary's premiere. 'My motivation in agreeing to this was to hopefully help chronicle what it was truly like … so that others who come after me can maybe pull from some of the lessons and some of the experiences, so that their experience is maybe a little bit easier or they can do it a little bit better.' Being first isn't necessarily new for McBride. She became the first out trans woman to work in the White House when she interned with the Obama administration, according to her 2018 memoir, 'Tomorrow Will Be Different: Love, Loss, and the Fight for Trans Equality.' Then, in 2016, she became the first trans person to speak at a major political convention when she gave a speech at the Democratic National Convention. In 2020, she became the country's first openly trans state senator. Though McBride had an idea of what it was like to be a 'first,' she entered Congress at an unprecedented time for trans people, as dozens of states have enacted restrictions on the bathrooms trans people can use in schools and government buildings and their access to transition-related care and school sports. The documentary also shows how the Democratic Party has been fractured both by the conservative campaign to restrict trans rights and the ongoing war in Gaza. The documentary shows McBride knocking on constituents' doors before the Democratic primary election in Delaware in September. McBride asks a constituent whether she can count on their support, and the constituent says, 'The only thing that would dissuade us from voting for you is can we count on you to call for a ceasefire?' McBride responds that she has called for a ceasefire, and the constituent asks, 'How much can we count on you to be vocal about it?' before becoming emotional and saying it's hard to see images of kids who 'look like our kid.' (The film also shows the reporter of this article asking McBride about the interaction in an interview.) Chase Joynt, the documentary's director, said it was important for him to show that moment not only because it revealed an important issue for one of McBride's constituents, but also because it spoke to a larger theme of the film: that much of the public expected McBride to be an activist, even though that isn't who she has been for most of her political career as a progressive Democrat largely in line with the party's platform. 'One of the central tensions in the film and of this political moment are the frictions between activist and electoral strategies of social change and the pressures put on politicians, in particular, to make statements and make claims and to be constantly negotiating what's at stake in all of those moves,' Joynt said. The documentary delves into the LGBTQ community's complex response to McBride's becoming a 'first.' It includes audio from Slate's 'Outward' podcast, in which writer Jules Gill-Peterson says, 'This first elected representative is really not one that it seems like many trans people are going to get excited about, given some of her policy positions and the way that she's sort of aligned with the party establishment.' Co-host Christina Cauterucci, a Slate editor, responds: 'I think she's had to be like that. I think a trans person who was more radical in any sense just simply would not have achieved what she's achieved.' Joynt said he hopes the documentary encourages people to think about the potentials and limitations of representation in political office. 'We can expand that conversation to think about a politics of representation that requires trans people to be good, that requires trans people to be palatable, to be on the right side, whatever that might mean, of certain issues,' Joynt said. Joynt said one of the 'perils' of coverage of political figures, particularly those who are 'firsts,' is that 'we put a lot of pressure on individual people to represent all of the various issues and needs,' when, in reality, no one person of any identity can represent all relevant views. McBride said that with this film, she wants people to see more than just headlines and short video clips. She wants them to get a glimpse of the tradeoffs and challenges — as well as the joy and humor — that come with being a first in Congress. 'It's so easy to forget the fullness of who people are and the complexities that every single person is navigating and often the impossible choices that people have to make,' she said. She added that, since the bathroom resolution, she has become 'more confident now than I have ever been that the approach that I am taking since getting to Congress is working.' 'Some of my colleagues realized that I'm just not fun,' she said, laughing. 'I'm not going to give them the response that they want, because I always knew that this was not about their actual, genuine distaste for trans people, it's because they wanted attention, and because I refuse to let them use me as a pawn, the reality show has moved on to other free gimmicks.' This article was originally published on
Tom's Guide
5 hours ago
- Tom's Guide
'High Potential' season 2: Everything we know so far
"High Potential" is officially coming back for season 2, and the next chapter in Morgan Gillory's unconventional crime-solving journey is already in the works. Production on the new season began in May 2025, and ABC has confirmed that the show is set to return this fall as part of its primetime lineup. The police procedural centers on Morgan (played by Kaitlin Olson), a single mother of three whose job cleaning the LAPD offices takes a sharp turn after her remarkable intellect earns her a spot consulting with the Major Crimes division. "High Potential's" mix of procedural drama and comedic quirkiness helped it break through and make it one of ABC's best freshman series in years. It averaged 11.5 million viewers across the network and streaming platforms like Hulu. Now, with season 2 on the horizon, fans can expect the story to pick up right where things left off. Here's everything we know about "High Potential" season 2 so far. "High Potential" season 2 doesn't have a specific release date yet. However, ABC has confirmed that it is set to return in fall 2025, when it will continue to air on Tuesdays at 10 p.m. ET. According to Entertainment Weekly, the second season could potentially be longer than the first, which consisted of 13 episodes. There have been no additional details provided on that front just yet, though. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. "High Potential" revolves around Kaitlin Olson's Morgan Gillory, so the Emmy-nominated actress will absolutely be back for season 2. Olson brings the same quick wit and physical comedy that made her a standout on "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" and "Hacks," but this time in the role of a genius single mom turned LAPD consultant. She should be joined once again by the show's ensemble of characters: And while JD Pardo's character, Tom, left Los Angeles to go to nursing school at the end of season 1, it's possible he could return, especially if the writers decide to revisit his romance with Morgan. One newcomer set to play a major role in season 2 is David Giuntoli, who fans may recognize from "Grimm" and "A Million Little Things." He's expected to play a dangerous serial killer who taunts Morgan, setting the stage for a bit of a cat-and-mouse arc. There are a few elements in play for season 2 of "High Potential", though there's no clear-cut summary for what's coming up just yet. Showrunner Rob Harthan has offered some commentary as far as what's in the works for the series, including some hints toward a more complex "big bad" that might surface in the new season. "I love a good serialized villain," he told The Wrap. Season 1 ended with a couple of big cliffhangers, including the reveal that Morgan's ex-husband, Roman, is definitely alive. With that in mind, Harthan doesn't want to leave audiences hanging too long. The plan for season 2 is to get into that mystery right away, while also weaving in an entirely new threat: a serial killer who seems to have taken an interest in Morgan. That includes diving deeper into Morgan's backstory, her complicated co-parenting relationship with Ludo and Roman's potential reappearance. "I think the audience has a real appetite to find out what really happened [between them]," Harthan said in an interview with TVLine. 'What was it like the day they sat down and had a conversation about what wasn't working? How did they decide how they should co-parent? What caused that? So now it's our job to come up with a story." Giving the second season additional episodes to breathe can go a long way toward establishing those storylines and much more, and it's something that even star Katilyn Olson is "excited" about, in addition to the ability to "explore the relationships between characters more." "A first season, you really have to give the main character most of the heavy lifting, because that's the person that you're interested in," she told EW. "I know that people are excited to dig into all of our other wonderful actors and their characters' background, so I think that that'll be really fun to do."
