9th Cir.;
14-35970

The court of appeals affirmed a district court judgment. The court held that a city's “use of force” policy did not violate its police officers' Second Amendment right to use firearms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.

In 2012, the United States brought a civil action against the City of Seattle, alleging that the Seattle Police Department (SPD) engaged in a pattern or practice of excessive use of force. Pursuant to a settlement agreement, the parties worked with a court-appointed monitor to produce a Use of Force (UF) Policy that would apply to SPD officers' use of approved department firearms while on duty. The district court issued an order approving the policy. The UF Policy stated, among other things, that a police officer “may draw or exhibit a firearm in the line of duty when the officer has reasonable cause to believe it may be necessary for his or her own safety or for the safety of others.” SPD officers Robert Mahoney and others filed suit challenging the UF Policy, alleging it unreasonably restricted their right to use department-issued firearms for self-defense. They asserted claims under the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.