Supreme Court Clears Way for Excessive Force Lawsuit Against Former LAPD Officer Over Fatal 2020 Confrontation
|This is the summary of the article by Libor Jany, Staff Writer of the LA Times on June 22, 2026. For the full version of the original article, please visit https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2026-06-22/supreme-court-says-ex-lapd-officer-may-be-sued-for-excessive-force-in-street-shooting
WASHINGTON — A civil rights lawsuit accusing a former Los Angeles Police Department officer of using unconstitutional force during a fatal 2020 encounter will go forward after the Supreme Court refused to intervene.
In an order issued Monday, the justices rejected an appeal from the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office seeking to dismiss claims against former officer Toni McBride. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented from the decision to let the case proceed.
The high court’s refusal to step in leaves intact an en banc ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, clearing the path for a federal jury to determine whether McBride crossed the constitutional line by continuing to shoot after the suspect was already down.
The Six-Second Encounter
The lawsuit traces back to April 22, 2020, when McBride and her partner responded to a chaotic multi-vehicle wreck near downtown Los Angeles.
At the scene, 38-year-old Daniel Hernandez, who investigators said was under the influence of methamphetamine and had engaged in self-harm, exited his damaged pickup truck carrying a utility knife. As onlookers watched, Hernandez advanced toward the officers while ignoring commands to drop the weapon.
Within a span of roughly six seconds, McBride fired six rounds. While federal judges largely agreed that her initial four shots were legally justified because Hernandez was advancing toward her with a blade, the dispute centered on her final two rounds.
After sustaining the fourth shot, Hernandez collapsed to the pavement. Following an approximate one-second pause, McBride fired a fifth and sixth round as he was moving on the ground, ultimately killing him.
Appellate Split Over Qualified Immunity
Hernandez’s family filed a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging excessive force under the Fourth Amendment.
Under established federal doctrine, police officers are shielded from civil liability by “qualified immunity” unless their conduct transgresses clearly established constitutional standards that any reasonable officer would understand.
In a narrow 6–5 en banc ruling, the 9th Circuit determined that McBride was not entitled to qualified immunity on the final volley of gunfire. Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen observed that established precedent has long prohibited officers from continuing to shoot an injured suspect who has fallen, unless the person continues to pose an active, immediate threat. Nguyen stated that a downed suspect holding an edged weapon does not justify deadly force simply by shifting or making nonthreatening movements on the pavement, leaving the question of reasonableness for a jury to evaluate.
The appellate court’s five dissenters sharply objected to that reasoning. Writing in dissent, Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson argued that McBride had to react within a split-second window during a chaotic, rapidly unfolding encounter and should not be penalized for failing to re-evaluate the threat in a single second. Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay cautioned that appellate courts should avoid judging fast-moving police encounters through “frame-by-frame” video hindsight years after the incident.
High Court Rejects City’s Appeal
Representing McBride and the city, Los Angeles municipal attorneys asked the Supreme Court to overturn the 9th Circuit, contending that the appellate decision failed to evaluate the incident from the perspective of an officer facing immediate danger on the street and improperly diminished the protections of qualified immunity.
Attorneys representing the Hernandez family, including constitutional scholar and UC Berkeley School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, opposed high court intervention. Chemerinsky argued that the 9th Circuit had simply recognized the basic constitutional principle that juries—not judges—are tasked with resolving genuine disputes of fact regarding whether an officer’s actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
The Supreme Court had reviewed the petition during several private conferences since late winter before issuing its summary rejection without an explanatory majority opinion. With the high court declining to step in, the case now returns to federal district court for trial proceedings.