Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito voiced strong disapproval over a recent qualified immunity decision involving a fatal police shooting in California.

According to Law & Crime, the Supreme Court declined to review an appeal from San Jose Police Officer Michael Pina, who was denied qualified immunity in a civil rights lawsuit after fatally shooting Jacob Dominguez in 2017.

Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, issued a dissenting statement characterizing the Ninth Circuit's reasoning as a "flagrant error" that "badly fumbled" qualified immunity doctrine. The case highlights ongoing judicial tensions about when law enforcement officers should be shielded from civil lawsuits stemming from on-duty actions.

Details surrounding the fatal encounter

The incident occurred in 2017 when San Jose police were executing an arrest warrant for Dominguez, who was wanted for armed robbery. Officers believed Dominguez was armed with a revolver based on information provided by a confidential informant.

Upon locating Dominguez in his vehicle, Officer Pina ordered him to raise his hands. While Dominguez initially complied, he subsequently "quickly dropped his hands" and "moved forward" with his hands "out of sight." Pina, apparently believing Dominguez was reaching for a weapon, fired and killed him when Dominguez quickly leaned back.

The entire confrontation lasted less than one minute, according to court records. Following the shooting, Dominguez's family filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Pina, and a jury ultimately found the officer liable for using excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Ninth Circuit's controversial precedent application

Pina's appeal centered on the district court's denial of qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that generally protects government officials from personal liability for civil damages when performing discretionary functions. The Ninth Circuit upheld the lower court's decision, finding that a reasonable jury could have determined Dominguez didn't appear to be reaching for a gun when Pina shot him.

The appeals court based its ruling on a 2022 precedent known as Peck v. Montoya, which also involved police officers fatally shooting someone they believed was reaching for a weapon. In that case, deputies shot Paul Mono, a 65-year-old legally blind man, during a confrontation at his home following a 911 call claiming Mono had been waving a gun.

Mono's wife later testified that he never touched the gun and posed no immediate threat when officers shot him. The Ninth Circuit found the deputies in that case were not entitled to qualified immunity, and then applied this precedent to deny qualified immunity to Officer Pina in the Dominguez case.

In his dissent, Alito wrote:

The decisions below made more than a trifling mistake. In the Fourth Amendment context, the clearly-established law requirement provides essential notice at the "'hazy border between excessive and acceptable force.'" But by holding an officer liable based on a judicial precedent issued after the events in question, the courts below ran roughshod over this key notice-bearing feature of our qualified-immunity jurisprudence.

Temporal discrepancy at heart of dissent

Alito's primary objection focused on the timing of the two cases. The Peck decision was issued in 2022, while the Dominguez shooting occurred in 2017. According to qualified immunity doctrine, officers can only be held liable for violating "clearly established" rights that would have been known to a reasonable officer at the time of the incident.

Since the Peck ruling came five years after the Dominguez shooting, Alito argued it could not possibly have provided notice to Officer Pina about what constituted clearly established law in 2017. This temporal discrepancy forms the crux of what Alito characterized as the Ninth Circuit's error.

Alito noted that he would have reversed the Ninth Circuit's ruling to "reiterate a point that this Court has made time and again: a judicial decision can serve as a basis for clearly established law only if it predates the allegedly unlawful conduct."

Broader debate over qualified immunity doctrine

The case underscores the ongoing controversy surrounding qualified immunity, which critics argue has evolved into an overly protective shield for law enforcement. The doctrine requires plaintiffs to show they were deprived of a right that was either guaranteed by statute or "clearly established" through case law.

Qualified immunity has drawn criticism from justices across the ideological spectrum. Both liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor and conservative Justice Clarence Thomas have questioned aspects of the doctrine, though for different reasons. Thomas, despite joining Alito's dissent regarding the procedural error, has previously expressed skepticism about qualified immunity's foundation.

The doctrine's defenders maintain it's necessary to protect officers making split-second decisions in dangerous situations from facing personal liability. Critics counter that it creates an insurmountable barrier for victims of police misconduct seeking justice through civil courts.

Alito, known for frequently criticizing the Ninth Circuit's rulings, viewed this case as an opportunity for the Supreme Court to correct what he considered a fundamental misapplication of qualified immunity principles.

Case illuminates ongoing judicial tensions

The Supreme Court's decision not to hear Officer Pina's appeal, despite Alito's forceful dissent, reflects the complex legal landscape surrounding qualified immunity cases in America's judicial system. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, criticized the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for what he termed a "flagrant error" in applying a 2022 precedent to a 2017 police shooting incident. The case involved San Jose Police Officer Michael Pina, who fatally shot Jacob Dominguez during an arrest when he believed the suspect was reaching for a weapon.