Hyer v. City & County of Honolulu (9th Circuit, 2024)
Facts
Hyer barricaded himself in a residence/studio after exhibiting erratic behavior; officers had attempted negotiation, but eventually used chemical munitions and a police K-9 to flush him out.
The police dog was deployed as part of a canine “takedown” attempt.
During that deployment, Hyer allegedly stabbed the dog with an arrow (he had a bow and arrow).
In response, the officers shot Hyer (eventually killing him) after he turned the bow/arrow toward them or attempted to reload.
The incident culminated in his death; he was transported by ambulance and pronounced dead.
Legal Issues on Appeal
Key issues the Ninth Circuit addressed:
Whether summary judgment was proper in light of disputed factual issues, especially whether the use of force (including the K-9 deployment) was objectively reasonable.
Whether the expert reports, which the district court had excluded, actually raised genuine factual disputes that should defeat summary judgment.
Whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, particularly regarding the use of force and canine takedown, depended on whether the law was clearly established.
Holding & Reasoning
The Ninth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment (in part) and remanded the case.
The court held that genuine disputes of material fact existed about whether the officers’ use of intermediate force (including K-9 deployment) was reasonable, when judged in light of Hyer’s mental state, the length of the standoff, and the availability of lesser alternatives.
It criticized the exclusion of expert reports (on mental illness, force alternatives, etc.), finding that those reports could support a jury’s finding that the force was excessive.
As to qualified immunity, the court declined to decide it at the summary judgment stage because resolution required resolving fact disputes (i.e., it was premature to hold the law was not clearly established).
The court also noted that, while the K-9 deployment was part of the force continuum, the facts surrounding the dog takedown (e.g., whether Hyer posed an immediate threat, whether the dog’s use was proportional) needed to be fleshed out at trial.
Significance & Observations
K-9 takedown in combination with other force: The decision affirms that deploying K-9s is part of the force continuum, and courts must assess it in context (threat, resistance, mental health, alternatives).
Expert evidence matters: The ruling underscores the importance of well-supported expert reports (e.g., on mental health, de-escalation, tactics) when challenging law enforcement force at summary judgment.
Qualified immunity is not a blanket protection: Even in use-of-force and K9 contexts, officers may not escape civil liability on summary judgment if fact disputes remain about reasonableness and whether the law was clear.
This case may influence how future K9 and police dog cases are litigated in the Ninth Circuit, especially in standoff or barricade scenarios involving mental health crises.
