City of Bakersfield, California, et al. v. Leslie Laray Crawford

The question presented is: 1. Did the Ninth Circuit err when it held that evidence of prior incidents which indicate that an individual may be mentally ill could be introduced for the purpose of determining whether an officer used excessive force and/or was negligent even though neither the officer nor his department had any prior knowledge of such incidents. This Court has carefully defined the analysis to be undertaken when considering whether the use of force, whether deadly or not, was “objectively reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment. See e.g., Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968); Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 7-12 (1985); Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989); Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 381-85 (2007). Whether force is “objectively reasonable” is based on the facts and circumstances confronting the involved officer, without regard to the officer’s underlying intent or motivation and must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. Based upon the framework that this Court created, an appropriate analysis into the reasonableness of the use of force included factors such as (1) the nature of the crime or other circumstances known to the officer at the time force was applied; (2) whether the plaintiff/decedent posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or to others; (3)