CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
United States District Court, District of Alaska (2022)
Alex Bartlow
In Howell v. Municipality of Anchorage, 2022 WL 17736788 (D. Alaska 2022), the district court
held that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether a SWAT team’s use of projectiles
and chemical agents against a mentally ill man was reasonable, precluding a grant a summary
judgment in favor of the SWAT team members on a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim.
(Id. at *9–22). The daughter of a diagnosed mentally ill man called 911 to report her father’s
violent behavior one night, telling 911 that her father needed to go to a psychiatric facility. (Id. at
*1). The daughter and her child were able to exit the residence in which her father remained,
however, another man remained in the residence her father. (Id. at *1). After a SWAT team
deployed chemical agents, the other man exited the residence and told police that the mentally ill
man was experiencing Vietnam flashbacks and was going into the crawlspace. (Id. at *2). Over
the next few hours, the SWAT team made additional announcements, deployed projectiles, and
continued to deploy more chemical agents, some of which were directly deployed into the
crawlspace. (Id. at *3). Approximately two hours after entering the residence, the SWAT team
found the mentally ill man deceased in the crawlspace. (Id.). The autopsy report identified
hypothermia and drowning as potential causes of death. (Id.). The daughter of the man brought
action against the SWAT team members and the Municipality of Anchorage. (Id.). To determine,
for qualified immunity purposes, whether a reasonable officer would have known that the SWAT
team’s tactics against the mentally ill man could constitute a Fourth Amendment violation, the
district court examined decisional law existing at the time of the SWAT team’s actions. (Id. at
*15–16). The court determined that it was “clearly established then that ‘where no immediate
threat to the safety of others exists, law enforcement officers are required to consider less intrusive
tactics’ before using ‘aggressive tactics to subdue a mentally unstable individual who is resisting
arrest.’” (Id. at *16). Denying a grant of summary judgement in favor of the SWAT team members
on a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim, the district court held that a genuine issue of
material fact existed as to whether the SWAT team’s use of projectiles and chemical agents against
a mentally ill man was reasonable. (Id. at *9–22).
