FOLLOW US

By Samuel A. Lopez – USA Herald

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals just got an earful from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who harshly criticized its handling of a police shooting case in San Jose. The case involves the 2017 fatal shooting of Jacob Dominguez, an unarmed man, by San Jose Police Sgt. Michael Pina. A federal jury found the officer had used excessive force, awarding Dominguez's widow and children $1 million in damages.

Alito, however, is having none of it, calling the lower courts' decisions "a flagrant error" and lambasting the appellate judges for what he described as "ham-fisted" reasoning. The justice argued that the courts "ran roughshod" over the doctrine of qualified immunity and based their decision on a 2022 case that was decided years after the shooting. But is Alito's outrage justified, or is this just another example of the Supreme Court's conservative wing trying to protect law enforcement at all costs?

The core of the dispute lies in the legal principle of qualified immunity — a doctrine designed to shield government officials, including police officers, from civil lawsuits unless they violate "clearly established" legal precedents. But what does "clearly established" even mean? That’s the million-dollar question (or, in this case, the $1 million question).

When Dominguez was shot in 2017, Pina and his legal team claimed he was protected under qualified immunity. However, U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman disagreed. She ruled that Pina could be held accountable, partially relying on the 9th Circuit's ruling in Peck v. Montoya — a 2022 case where deputies fatally shot a blind man.

Here’s where things get murky: Peck was decided five years after Dominguez’s death. Alito pounced on this point, arguing that the lower courts “badly fumbled” by using a decision that wasn’t in place at the time of the shooting. But Judge Freeman had an answer for that. She pointed out that Peck built on an even older case, Cruz v. City of Anaheim, which had already set a precedent on excessive force in traffic stops. In other words, Peck wasn’t rewriting the rules — it was reinforcing them.

Published vs. Unpublished Decisions: Does It Matter?

Another legal wrinkle here is that the 9th Circuit’s decision in the Dominguez case was unpublished — meaning it wasn’t intended to set a binding precedent. Alito suggested this made the ruling even weaker, but legal experts disagree.

Unpublished decisions don’t carry the same weight as published ones, but they do influence similar cases, especially when they align with existing law. The appellate panel explicitly stated that “a reasonable jury could have found that Dominguez did not appear to be reaching for a weapon when Officer Pina shot him.” And under established precedent, that means deadly force wasn’t justified.

Alito’s View: Protecting Officers or Undermining Accountability?

Justice Alito’s dissent is essentially a full-throated defense of qualified immunity. His concern? That police officers shouldn’t have to worry about lawsuits when making split-second decisions.

“To overcome qualified immunity, a party must show that an official violated a federal right that was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the alleged misconduct,” Alito wrote.

In other words, Pina could not have known that killing Dominguez would expose him to a civil lawsuit because, according to Alito, the law wasn’t "clear enough" at the time.

Legal scholars like UCLA Law Professor Joanna C. Schwartz argue that this reasoning is flawed. “The notion that you have to find a prior court decision with nearly identical facts in order to clearly establish the law can be a very high barrier,” Schwartz said.

Even if Peck had been decided before the shooting, it’s unlikely Pina would have been aware of it in the heat of the moment. Officers don’t memorize legal precedents; they’re trained on general principles of law. That’s why courts have to interpret whether force was justified after the fact.

The Bigger Picture: Qualified Immunity and Its Impact

This case is yet another example of the deep flaws in the qualified immunity doctrine. While the Supreme Court insists the rule is needed to prevent frivolous lawsuits against officers, research suggests it does little to achieve that goal. Schwartz’s studies indicate that most excessive force claims are not dismissed on qualified immunity grounds.

And here’s a reality check: even when officers are found liable, they rarely pay out of pocket. Studies show that police departments and cities almost always foot the bill. So, the idea that officers are constantly at risk of personal financial ruin? It’s a myth.

The bigger danger isn’t to officers — it’s to communities. When qualified immunity is applied too broadly, it shields bad cops just as much as good ones. And in cases like Dominguez’s, it prevents families from getting justice.

As for Alito’s outrage? It’s misplaced. The courts ruled in favor of Dominguez’s widow because they were right to do so. And if you ask Dominguez’s children, they’d probably tell you that $1 million isn’t nearly enough.

• Court Decisions & Case Law:
  • Peck v. Montoya(2022) - [Link]
  • Cruz v. City of Anaheim(2014) - [Link]
  • Qualified Immunity Overview - [Link]
• Legal Analysis: For a deeper dive into legal analysis without the jargon, join my Patreon community, Legal Insights and Strategies by Samuel Lopez, for exclusive content, templates, and insider tips.