Piccuta Argues Wrongful Death Police Shooting Case to Ninth Circuit

Piccuta Argues Wrongful Death Police Shooting Case to Ninth Circuit

On September 10, 2024, Charles Tony Piccuta argued a police excessive force to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case involved a police shooting that occurred in Mohave County, Arizona. The shooting killed 29-year-old Bradley Rose. Piccuta represented Rose’s estate and both his parents in the case.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

The Ninth Circuit is the largest federal court of appeals in the country. It considers all appeals arising from the federal district courts in the Western states. This includes all California District Courts:

• United States District Court, Central District of California
• United States District Court, Eastern District of California
• United States District Court, Northern District of California
• United States District Court, Southern District of California

Parties who have a case in federal district court in California may appeal adverse rulings to the Ninth Circuit. Not all rulings in the district courts are appealable. However, rulings that dispose of a case may be appealed as a matter of right.

This means that the party may appeal to the court without receiving permission to do so. This is unlike the United States Supreme Court, which has discretion and selects which appeals they will consider. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals must consider all appeals properly before them.

Piccuta Has Handled Multiple Cases In Front of the Ninth Circuit

Most attorneys never argue in court. Even less argue a case at the appellate level. The attorneys that do usually only handle appeals and hold themselves out as appellate specialists.

Piccuta has handled multiple cases in front of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He has numerous published decisions from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He has presented arguments there several times throughout his career. In fact, Piccuta’s argument of this case in September was the second time he argued there in just 90 days.

Piccuta Handles All Appeals Arising from the Firm’s Federal Cases

Piccuta and his firm handle all appeals arising from their cases. All of the firm’s 1983 police excessive force cases are litigated in federal court. Other high value cases that the firm handles are also litigated there. Piccuta currently has ten cases pending in federal court.

Most attorneys who represent plaintiffs do not like litigating in federal court. This is where defense attorneys prefer to practice and believe they have an advantage. However, Piccuta learned to handle cases in federal court during his time doing defense work. As such, he has extensive experience handling federal cases in district court both representing plaintiffs and as a defense lawyer.

Qualified Immunity in the Police Shooting Case

The case that Piccuta argued to the Ninth Circuit in September involved police excessive force and the lower court’s granting of qualified immunity to the officer. Qualified immunity is a judicial doctrine that allows a police officer to escape liability for a constitutional violation if there was no previous case that would put the police officer on notice that his actions were a violation. This is true even if the Court concludes that the officer did commit a violation.

A police officer who uses excessive force by shooting an individual violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

An unlawful police shooting is excessive force. A police officer who uses excessive force by shooting an individual violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from illegal search and seizure by police officers. Excessive force is considered an unlawful seizure of an individual.

The Facts of the Police Shooting Excessive Force Case

The case involved the killing of Bradley Rose who was mentally distraught. Local sheriff deputies began pursuing Rose after he was driving erratically at a low rate of speed. Eventually, Rose stopped at his intended destination. When he did, he exited his vehicle looking confused and staring blankly at a deputy who had stopped immediately behind him.

The deputy charged Rose and went “hands on.” The deputy shot Rose dead approximately 10 seconds after he exited his vehicle. No commands were given by the deputy. The deputy did not use his backup as he was trained and required to do. The deputy was not wearing his body worn camera.

The Allegations in the Police Shooting Case

Below are the pertinent allegations taken verbatim from the police wrongful shooting lawsuit:

10. Bradley [Rose] had been residing with his girlfriend in Kingman, Arizona, until a few days prior to April 17, 2021.
11. On, or about, April 14, 2021, Bradley decided to move from his girlfriend’s residence so that he could get his own apartment. That day, Bradley temporarily moved in with his sister, Ashley, and brother-in-law, Cody, also in Kingman.  Ashley and Cody’s children, Bradley’s nephews, also lived in the home with Ashley and Cody.
12. On April 17, 2021, Ashley and Cody drove to pick up food while Bradley watched his nephews at their residence. Later that evening, Ashley, Cody and Bradley watched a movie while Bradley waited for his father to call him to help move furniture.
13. At approximately 5:00 p.m., Bradley left his sister’s home and drove to his parents’ nearby residence to help his father. After they were finished, Bradley and his parents ordered pizza.
14. Later that evening, Bradley called his girlfriend to let her know that he was planning to come retrieve the rest of his belongings, some of which he had moved out earlier that week. His girlfriend informed him that would not be a problem.
15. At approximately 8:30 p.m., Bradley left his parents’ home and went to his sister’s to pick up an empty laundry basket to use to haul his things from his girlfriend’s residence. Bradley and his brother-in-law, Cody, agreed to play pool when Bradley returned.
16. At around 9:00 p.m., Bradley left his sister’s home and began driving to his girlfriend’s residence, about four miles away.
17. During the drive, Bradley suffered a psychotic episode, causing him to lose touch with reality and to drive unpredictably, though not at a high rate of speed.
18. Due to Bradley’s unpredictable driving, he was eventually pursued by four Mohave County Deputy Sheriffs, namely Defendants Cardenas, Farney, Godfrey and Shrader. The deputies pursued Bradley in four separate patrol units.
19. In the course of the pursuit, the deputies’ sergeant instructed them to disengage because of Bradley’s low rate of speed. In response, the deputies slowed their vehicles, fell back, and turned off their sirens and red and blue lights.
20. At no time during the pursuit did the deputies have reason to believe that Bradley was armed. However, at least one of the deputies did suggest over the radio that Bradley may have been suffering from a mental health condition given his unpredictable driving.
21. Bradley’s route to his girlfriend’s residence on McVicar Avenue was indirect. However, he did arrive at approximately 9:12 p.m., not long after he had departed his sister’s home.
22. Bradley pulled his vehicle into the driveway off of McVicar Avenue, turned off the engine and got out of the car. Farney, who was immediately behind Bradley, parked his patrol unit directly behind Bradley’s vehicle so as to block it in.  As Farney did so, neither his red and blue lights nor his siren was activated.
23. As Bradley exited his vehicle, he turned and faced Farney. Farney noticed that Bradley was staring at him with a glazed-over look in his eyes.  Farney could also see that Bradley was unarmed and not attempting to flee the scene.
24. Godfrey and Shrader arrived seconds after Farney, and Cardenas came upon the scene almost immediately after Godfrey and Shrader.
25. Farney was aware that the other three deputies were in the vicinity and available to provide assistance. However, Farney did not confer with the other deputies nor wait for them to confront Bradley.  Instead, Farney got out of his vehicle and drew his firearm, which he pointed at Bradley.
26. When Farney exited his patrol unit, he left his body-worn camera in the vehicle, and not on his person in violation of Department policy.
27. Immediately after exiting his vehicle, Farney began closing the distance between himself and Bradley, who continued to appear non-responsive and to stare at Farney with a blank look in his eyes.
28. Farney failed to give Bradley any commands or warnings before unholstering his firearm, approaching Bradley and going hands on with him.
29. Bradley was, and appeared to be, unaware of his surroundings and the circumstances when Farney unholstered his firearm, approached Bradley and went hands on.
30. Farney did not believe that Bradley was armed, nor in fact was he, when Farney unholstered his firearm, approached Bradley and went hands on.
31. Farney was unaware of any criminal history of Bradley prior to April 17, 2021.
32. Farney approached Bradley near Bradley’s car while the driver side door was still open. It took Farney approximately 2–3 seconds from the time Farney exited his vehicle to go hands on with Bradley.  After another 2–3 seconds, Farney disengaged and put distance between himself and Bradley.
33. After Farney had disengaged, Godfrey and Shrader were present at the scene. Instead of enlisting their assistance or resorting to less lethal force, Farney pointed his firearm at Bradley and shot him four times.  Bradley began struggling to breathe and spitting blood from his mouth.  He then stumbled a few feet toward his girlfriend’s residence before he collapsed, visibly covered in his own blood.
34. From the moment he exited his vehicle, Farney intended to and did employ the use of his firearm. At no time did Farney attempt to tase or use any other less lethal means of force as alternatives to pointing his firearm at and shooting Bradley.
35. Farney failed to communicate with Bradley, failed to give him adequate instructions and failed to give Bradley any warnings including a warning of his intention to use deadly force.
36. Farney shot Bradley less than 6-7 seconds after exiting and shutting the door to his patrol unit.
37. Farney retrieved and activated his body-worn camera from his vehicle after the shooting.
38. Deputy Godfrey arrived at the scene immediately after Farney while Farney was hands on with Bradley. Godfrey heard the gunshots and approached Bradley as Bradley was falling to the ground.
39. Godfrey could see that Bradley had been shot, that he was seriously injured, that he was struggling to breathe and that he was physically incapacitated. It was readily apparent at this point that Bradley posed no threat to the safety of others and that he was incapable of actively resisting or evading arrest.  Godfrey responded by turning Bradley onto his side so that he could handcuff Bradley’s hands behind his back.
40. Deputy Shrader arrived and approached Bradley at about the same time as Godfrey. Shrader pointed her firearm at Bradley while Godfrey applied handcuffs.
41. Seconds later, Deputy Cardenas arrived. With Bradley’s hands restrained behind his back, Cardenas used a knife to cut off Bradley’s shirt.  Bradley’s face and body were covered in blood as he struggled to breathe and stay alive.
42. Cardenas, Farney, Godfrey and Shrader were all aware that Bradley had been seriously wounded, that he was incapacitated and that he was fighting for his life. They were also aware that Bradley had been handcuffed.  Each officer allowed Bradley to remain handcuffed for nearly 17 of his last minutes alive.
43. Bradley was pronounced dead shortly after 10:00 p.m. that night. The cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds to the chest.

Some Issues Highlighted At the Ninth Circuit Argument

During oral argument, Piccuta drove home several points that the lower court should have analyzed differently. They were as follows:

• That the deputy claimed he gave commands at the scene, yet his body worn camera audio recorded no commands.
• That the deputy claimed he walked toward Rose at the scene, yet home video surveillance showed him charging toward Rose.
• That the deputy claimed he shot Rose with his firearm pointed upward from his hip, yet the bullet trajectories were all at a downward angle.
• That the deputy claimed he had disengaged from Rose, yet he did not holster his weapon or seek to use a less lethal alternative.
• That the deputy claimed he did not know where his back-up was, yet they were at the scene and he failed to use them.
• That the deputy’s actions violated nearly every single department policy and procedure regarding dealing with those experiencing a behavioral health crisis.
• That the deputy’s actions violated the department’s policies and procedures on how to conduct a high-risk traffic stop.
• That the deputy’s failure to wear his body worn camera was a deliberate decision.

A video of the argument that Piccuta presented can be viewed by accessing the Ninth Circuit’s video archives at the following link.

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/video/?20240910/23-2846/

A Decision on the Wrongful Police Shooting Appeal

Piccuta and his clients will now wait for a decision to be issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. If the decision is favorable and the appeals court reverses the ruling, the case will return back to the lower court for further proceedings there. Alternatively, either party could present a request to the United States Supreme Court to consider the decision on the appeal.

An Experienced Police Shooting Attorney

Piccuta has handled multiple excessive force police shooting cases. If you or a loved has experienced excessive force, contact the Piccuta Law Group today. Our civil rights lawyers handle police excessive force cases including those involving police shootings resulting in death. We have extensive experience winning civil rights cases and have successfully handled these cases all the way through appeal.

We handle cases in both Arizona and California. A consultation is free and we do not charge a fee unless we recover for you. Contact our office today to discuss your case.

About the author: The content on this page was written by California civil rights lawyer and plaintiffs trial lawyer Charles “Tony” Piccuta. Piccuta graduated with honors from Indiana University-Maurer School of Law in Bloomington, Indiana (Previously ranked Top 35 US News & World Report).  Piccuta took and passed the State bars of Arizona, California, Illinois and Nevada (all on the first try). He actively practices throughout California and Arizona. He is a winning trial attorney that regularly handles serious personal injury cases and civil rights lawsuits. He has obtained six and seven figure verdicts in both state and federal court. He has been recognized by Super Lawyers for six years straight. He is AV Rated by Martindale Hubble. He is a member of the Consumer Attorneys of California, American Association for Justice, National Police Accountability Project, Arizona Association of Justice, and many local county and City bar associations.

Disclaimer: The information on this web site is attorney advertising and is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. Reading and relying upon the content on this page does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you are seeking legal advice, you should contact our law firm for a free consultation and to discuss your specific case and issues.