The Impact of Scott v. Smith on Law Enforcement’s Response to Mental Health Crises—and Why It’s a Good Thing
In Scott v. Smith, 109 F.4th 1215 (2024), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a landmark decision that significantly impacts how law enforcement handles mental health crises. The court ruled that the use of bodyweight compression on Roy Scott, an unarmed individual experiencing a mental health crisis, constituted excessive force, particularly given that he was compliant, not suspected of any crime, and posed no apparent threat.
This ruling forces agencies to reconsider how they approach mental health-related calls and aligns with longstanding constitutional principles outlined in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), which governs use-of-force assessments under the Fourth Amendment.
How Scott v. Smith Aligns with Graham v. Connor
The Supreme Court’s decision in Graham v. Connor established that all claims of excessive force by law enforcement must be evaluated under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard. This means that an officer’s use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, considering the totality of circumstances. The ruling emphasized that courts should evaluate force by balancing the governmental interest in using force against the individual’s rights.
The Scott v. Smith ruling applies this framework specifically to mental health-related encounters. Here’s how it aligns:
Severity of the Crime (or Lack Thereof)
Graham instructs courts to consider whether the individual was suspected of a serious crime. In Scott, the individual was not engaged in criminal activity. This significantly reduces the government’s interest in using force.
The Scott ruling reaffirms that force cannot be justified solely based on an individual’s erratic behavior when no crime has occurred.
Immediate Threat to Officers or Others
Under Graham, force is more justifiable if the suspect poses an immediate threat. In Scott, the individual was compliant and did not threaten officers or bystanders.
The Ninth Circuit ruled that applying bodyweight compression in this case was excessive because the officers lacked a reasonable belief that Scott was a threat.
Resistance and Attempting to Flee
Graham recognizes that force may be necessary if a suspect is actively resisting or attempting to escape. In Scott, there was no such resistance.
The ruling emphasizes that force should not be automatically used on individuals who are mentally distressed but non-threatening.
Balancing Governmental Interest and Individual Rights
Law enforcement’s use of force must always be balanced against the government's interest in maintaining public safety. Scott v. Smith reinforces that when dealing with non-criminal mental health crises, the government’s interest in using force is significantly lower than in cases involving violent or criminal suspects.
This ruling makes clear that:
The government’s interest in using force is not automatically heightened just because an individual is experiencing a mental health crisis.
When force is used against individuals who are non-violent, unarmed, and compliant, it is more likely to be deemed excessive under the Graham standard.
Agencies must ensure that officers understand that mental health distress does not inherently justify force, especially when no crime is involved.
Why This Shift is a Good Thing
1. Reducing Liability for Officers and Agencies
By clarifying that force is unjustified in many non-criminal mental health incidents, Scott v. Smith protects officers from excessive force claims and potential civil liability.
The denial of qualified immunity in Scott signals that agencies must adjust policies to avoid costly lawsuits and reputational damage.
2. Ensuring Force is Used Only When Justified
Graham v. Connor requires a balancing test that considers the reasonableness of force. Scott v. Smith reinforces that force should not be the default option in mental health situations where no threat exists.
This ruling encourages the use of de-escalation techniques and alternative crisis response models rather than unnecessary physical restraint.
3. Improving Community Trust and Public Safety
The ruling aligns with best practices that prioritize non-police intervention in mental health crises, helping to build public confidence in law enforcement.
Agencies that implement policies consistent with Scott v. Smith and Graham v. Connor will strengthen community trust by demonstrating a commitment to lawful, appropriate use of force.
Conclusion
The Scott v. Smith decision does not rewrite the rules of policing—it reinforces existing constitutional principles established in Graham v. Connor. By ensuring that force is only used when justified and necessary, this ruling benefits law enforcement agencies, officers, and the communities they serve. Law enforcement should embrace these clarifications as an opportunity to improve response strategies, reduce liability, and support a more effective, compassionate approach to mental health crises.
We’ve put this framework into our Crisis Intervention Course to add further context to when the application of force is appropriate and even in many cases, legal vs. illegal. Come train with us!
