Case Explained: S.L., ET AL. V. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, ET AL.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-15

Docket: 5:24-cv-00249-CAS-SP

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity regarding the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claims and remanded the case for further proceedings on the Fourteenth Amendment and state-law claims. The court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct during an hours-long manhunt of an armed suspect accused of robbery and molestation did not violate clearly established law. Applying the standard that a right is only clearly established if existing precedent places the constitutional question beyond debate, the court found that none of the cited cases—including *Estate of Lopez*, *Aguirre*, *George*, *Curnow*, or *Harris*—were sufficiently analogous to the current facts, which involved a suspect who was armed, accused of violent crimes, suspected of killing a police dog, and running toward an occupied home despite warnings. Consequently, the court determined that no reasonable official would have understood the officers’ actions as unconstitutional at the time. On remand, the district court must address whether qualified immunity applies to the plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claims, requiring the plaintiffs to identify authority rendering those rights sufficiently definite, and then determine its jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.