Aminus Curiae - Robinson v. Solano County

Browse Search

A > M STEVEN O.. MANNING JOHN A. MARDER OEN141S B. KASS ANTHONY J. ELLROD EUGENE P. RAMIREZ LAWRENCE O. ESTEN MILDRED K. O.UNN' THOMAS R. GILL KATHLEEN A. HUNT' ALFRED M. DE LA CRUZ ERWIN A. NEPOMUCENO STEVEN O. BLADES MICHAEL McCARTHY FREDRIC W. TRESTER JEFFREY M. LENKOV BRIAN T. MOSS' MARGUERITE T. LIEU STEVEN J. RENICK UZZI O. RAANAN- DAVID C. ADDISON DAVID J. WILSON DAVID A. PECK JAMES F. SAUNDERS DAVID F. MASTAN . WILLIAM W. WEBB DENISE WALTER CRAIG F. BERNESSER OWEN E GIRARD JAMES J. PERKINS JOHN M. RIBARICH JOHN D. MARINO KEVIN E. BARRY' MILAN YANCICH' JAMES W£INTRE' ANDRIY J. SEMOTIUK' SALVIA HAVENS LAURA K LEE' MANNWG&MARDER EVELINA M. SERAFINI AN GELAG. KIM JULIE FLEMING STEVEN H. TAYLOR KIRSTEN A. EHRIG MICHAEL R. PARKER JULIE A. ESPOSITO CHRISTOPHER L PATTON ROBERT C. JENKINS' DEVALLIS RUTLEDGE' FRANCINE S. KELLY LAUREEN A MONTOYA RINAT B. KUER-ERLICH DAVID J. FRANKENBERGER. JR. GAYLEY M. BUCKNER' JONATHAN M. COLE JONATHAN A. WERSHOW KEITH N. CROUCH JANINE S. MCMILLION SCOTT W. DAVENPORT JOHN D. YOUNG CYRIL YU DAVID L SCOTT PATRICK L HURLEY L TREVOR GRIMM MIKE A. FOX DANIELLE N. DECOU SHANNON W ROGERS CLIFFORD A CLANCEY KALSS, ELLROD, RAMIREZ LLP 'ADMITTED IN MULTIPLE JURISDICTIONS. Dear City Attorney: ATTORNEYS AT LAW 45TH FLOOR AT FIRST INTERSTATE TOWER 707 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 TELEPHONE: (213) 624-6900 FACSIMILE: (213) 624-6999 WEBSITE WWW.MMKER.COM February 16, 2001 ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE 2 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 510 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614 TELEPHONE: (949) 4406690 FACSIMILE: (949) 4746991 SAN DIEGO OFFICE 550 WEST C STREET, SUITE 630 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 TELEPHONE: (619) 515-0269 FACSIMILE: (619) 51S-0268 SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE 400 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 1105 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 TELEPHONE: (415) 263-1969 FACSIMILE: (415) 263-1968 As you are no doubt aware, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, in the case of Robinson v. Solano County, 218 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2000), ruled that the mere act of a police officer pointing a gun at someone -- even someone who has been reported as being armed -- can constitute excessive force for which the officer can be sued, and further held that the "reasonableness" of the officer's decision is a question of fact which must go to the jury. The Ninth Circuit has agreed to rehear the case en Banc, and the League of California Cities has asked us to author an amicus brief in support of Solano County. We are hoping that you and your city will agree to join that brief It takes no great imagination to understand the danger created by the original Robinson decision. If it is adopted by the en Banc panel, your city will be placed in the impossible position of either ordering its police officers to not use the one technique most likely to protect them from the random violence that plagues our streets, or to accept a flood of new lawsuits, possibly one every time a police officer feels obliged to unholster his or her gun, all of which will have to go to trial. Neither of these options is acceptable, and so we ask you to join us in urging the Ninth Circuit to reject this unwarranted expansion of the definition of excessive force. If you would like to have your City added as one of the amicus parties to our brief, please complete and return the enclosed Authorization. Thank you for your assistance in this very important matter. Very tr}.ily yours, STEVEN -J. }