Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt (May 4, 2000)
LDF provided active representation on this high-profile case to
Humboldt deputies and Eureka police officers. These deputies and
officers have been totally dismissed from the case.
* Court: Ninth Circuit
* Jurisdiction: County of Humboldt and City of Eureka
* Defendants' Job Class: Deputy Sheriffs and Police Officers
* LDF Panel Attorneys: Mike Morrison and Bill Rapoport successfully
represented our participants
* Trial Court: In favor of Defendants
* Ninth Circuit: In favor of Plaintiffs as to the City, County and
Sheriff
* Issues: Section 1983, pepper spray, excessive force, qualified
immunity
Headwaters Facts
* In 1997, the plaintiffs staged three non-violent protests against
logging.
* At each protest some of the plaintiffs locked themselves together
using "black bears", i.e., heavy steel cylinders to which
the protesters attached steel bracelets worn around their wrists.
* The protesters could not be easily taken into custody when they
were in black bears; the protesters could easily release themselves
from black bears; if they refused to release themselves, the devices
could be removed only through use of an electric grinder.
* In 1997, the Humboldt County Sheriff's Department organized a
special team to deal with environmental protesters and gave the team
special training in the use of the grinder.
* Since the grinder gives off sparks that might injure individuals
near it, the department considered as an alternative to the grinder
the use of pepper spray; the department consulted with a pepper
spray trainer, the county's risk manager, and the district
attorney, and decided that use of pepper spray was appropriate.
The county knew that pepper spray had never been used
on non-violent protesters.
* In September 1997, at a non-violent protest in Scotia, seven
protesters formed a black bear circle in an office of Pacific Lumber
Company. The deputies warned the protesters that they would use pepper
spray; the protesters refused to release; pepper spray was applied
with Q-tips to the corners of the eyes of four protesters; the other
three released; the deputies after twenty minutes reapplied pepper
spray to the first four; the deputies then applied water to the eyes
of the four; after an hour the deputies without difficulty carried the
four outside and used a grinder to remove the black bears, throwing a
blanket over the heads of the four to protect them from sparks.
* In an October 1997 non-violent protest at Bear Creek,
four protesters locked themselves to two Pacific Lumber
bulldozers with black bears; the deputies warned the protesters about
the use of pepper spray; the deputies videotaped the incident; the
deputies applied pepper spray to the eyes of the protesters with
Q-tips; shortly thereafter, a deputy sprayed the pepper spray at their
faces; the officers then used the grinder to cut the black bears.
* In October 1997 at a non-violent protest at the Eureka office of
Congressman Frank Riggs, four protesters used black bears to chain
themselves to a tree stump they had brought in; a police officer
videotaped the incident; another police officer warned the protesters
that pepper spray would be used; a police officer then applied pepper
spray to their eyes with a Q-tip; a police officer then sprayed the
protesters directly in the face; the protesters then released the
black bears, and the police officers used water to rinse off the
pepper spray.
* The plaintiffs filed suit in federal court under section 1983 in
October 1997, seeking among other things, punitive damages from the
individual deputies and officers.
* The trial court dismissed the lower-level deputies and officers
on the basis of qualified immunity. So that was good news for our
participants.
* The case went to a jury trial as to the sheriff and the City of
Eureka and the County of Humboldt.
* The trial court dismissed the case against the sheriff after the
plaintiffs rested their case.
* The jury deadlocked as to the city and the county.
* The trial court then entered a judgment as a matter of law in
favor of the city and the county.
* Plaintiffs appealed on most issues (although they did not appeal
the judgment in favor of the lower-level deputies and officers); the
Ninth Circuit reversed the trial court's rulings and remanded the case
back to the trial court for a new trial. This new trial, however, will
not include our participants; they are entirely out of the case.
Headwaters Analysis
* The Ninth Circuit starts by noting that only reasonable uses of
force are acceptable under the Fourth Amendment and that questions of
reasonableness are usually to be decided by the jury.
* A reasonable jury could have decided that the use of pepper spray
was a significant use of force. Pepper spray is painful, and its pain
does not cease when a protester complies with an officer's demands.
* The governmental interests at stake did not justify the use of
pepper spray:
* It was not necessary to use the pepper spray to remove the
protesters from private property quickly.
* There was not present in any of the three incidents a large group
of lawless protesters to justify the use of pepper spray.
* The protesters were not creating a public safety hazard.
* None of the three incidents required split-second judgment; so an
officer should not be accorded the benefit of the doubt.
* The crime committed by the protesters, i.e., trespass, was not
sufficiently serious to justify pepper spray.
* Other alternatives, such as using the grinder or waiting out the
protesters, were available.
* In sum, a reasonable jury based on the evidence presented could
have decided in favor of the plaintiffs.
* As to qualified immunity for the sheriff, such immunity exists
only if the constitutional law was unclear and only if a reasonable
peace officer could have believed the conduct was lawful.
* The law as to excessive force was clearly established.
* Given that there were disputes as to the facts, the Ninth Circuit
ruled that it was an error for the trial judge to determine that a
reasonable peace officer could have believed that use of pepper spray
on the protesters was lawful.
Conclusion
The Headwaters case is a good summary of the law concerning
excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. It is a body of law full
of factual twists and turns and legal pitfalls. It also illustrates
the strong Ninth Circuit preference to have section 1983 cases decided
by juries, not by judges.
