Sacramento County deputy sheriffs Brett Anderson and Todd Hengel were sued in 2001 by Matthew Blanford, a man the deputies had been forced to shoot when he refused to put down a 2 ½ foot-long cavalry saber and tried to enter an occupied residence. The U.S. District Court-Eastern District in Sacramento dismissed the lawsuit based on the deputies' qualified immunity, and in a recently published decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal. (Blanford v. Sacramento County (2005) 2005 WL 1053348.)

The issue before the courts was whether "a reasonable law enforcement officer" in the same position as Deputies Anderson and Hengel at the time of the shooting would, or would not, have known shooting Blanford was excessive force. Peace officers are entitled to use that force necessary to respond to an imminent threat of death or great bodily injury. (Graham v. Connor (1989) 490 U.S. 386.) Courts and juries must ask, in hindsight, whether the use of force was objectively reasonable; i.e., whether the use of force would have appeared necessary to any reasonable officer in the same circumstances.

Sword-Wielding Man Ignored Deputies' Commands

On November 13, 2000, deputies Anderson and Hengel responded to reports of a man wearing a ski mask and carrying a sword in a suburban residential neighborhood. Coming upon Blanford, the deputies drew their firearms and ordered him to stop and drop the sword. Blanford walked away, with the deputies trailing by 20-25 feet consistent with their training. Anderson and Hengel continued to shout commands and warned Blanford they would shoot if he did not drop the sword.

Blanford did not comply. Instead, he turned toward the deputies and made a loud growling or roaring sound. At that point, Anderson and Hengel considered Blanford to be in violation of Penal Code section 417.8, drawing or exhibiting a weapon to resist arrest.

Blanford kept walking toward 8679 Gaines Avenue, where his parents lived. Blanford testified he first became aware the deputies were behind him as he was passing a neighbor’s house, but kept walking even though he knew the deputies might be there for him.

Deputies Fired to Prevent Imminent Threat of Harm

Hengel and Anderson did not know who Blanford was or where he lived. He had ignored their commands to drop the sword and appeared to recognize that he was being challenged by uniformed peace officers. When Blanford growled or roared at them, the deputies became even more concerned he posed a risk of harm to themselves or others.

At the house, Blanford tried to enter the front door and the back yard. Not wanting him to enter a house or yard where he could hurt someone, Anderson and Hengel fired, hitting Blanford at least once. Still carrying the sword, Blanford walked through a gate and kept trying to enter the house. Deputy Anderson fired a second round, hitting Blanford again. Blanford did not drop the sword. Deputy Anderson fired again, severing Blanford’s spine.

Courts Find Deputies Used Appropriate Force

The standards established by the U.S. Supreme Court require a plaintiff claiming excessive force to establish the use of force was objectively unreasonable. Officers are permitted under the Fourth Amendment to use deadly force to prevent escape "[w]here the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others." (Tennessee v. Garner (1985) 471 U.S. 1,11.)

Blanford claimed Anderson and Hengel violated his civil rights by using excessive force when he had not committed any crime and did not pose any danger to anyone. He said he did not hear the deputies because he had been wearing headphones concealed underneath his knit cap, was on psychiatric medications, and did not remember growling or roaring at the officers. He argued the officers lacked probable cause to believe he posed any threat of harm.

But the District Court and the Court of Appeals both determined, in the words of Ninth Circuit Judge Rymer:

[T]he deputies had cause to believe that Blanford posed a serious danger to themselves and to anyone in the house or yard that he was intent upon accessing, because he failed to heed warnings or commands and was armed with an edged weapon that he refused to put down.

Matthew Blanford’s lawsuit against Brett Anderson and Todd Hengel was dismissed in October, 2003, and the dismissal upheld by the Ninth Circuit on May 6, 2005.

Brett Anderson and Todd Hengel were represented in the civil case by Porter, Scott, Weiberg & Delehant. David E. Mastagni, a senior associate attorney with Mastagni, Holstedt, Amick, Miller, Johnsen & Uhrham.