Police Shooting Jury Decision May Reshape Future Use-of-Force Lawsuits
The Police Shooting Jury Decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court could significantly reshape how courts evaluate police shootings, particularly cases involving multiple rounds of gunfire. The ruling is also drawing attention for its potential impact on the federal wrongful death lawsuit filed by the family of Yong Yang, who was fatally shot by a Los Angeles police officer in 2024.
The Supreme Court on June 22 declined to hear an appeal filed by the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office seeking dismissal of an excessive force lawsuit against former Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) Officer Toni McBride. By refusing to review the case, the Court allowed the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling to stand, clearing the way for a jury trial.
Why the Supreme Court’s Ruling Matters
The McBride case bears notable similarities to the fatal shooting of Yong Yang.
In April 2020, Daniel Hernandez, who authorities said was under the influence of methamphetamine, caused a series of vehicle collisions in downtown Los Angeles before exiting his truck armed with a knife. As Hernandez approached officers, McBride fired six shots.
The Ninth Circuit concluded that while the first four shots may have been constitutionally justified, the final two shots could constitute excessive force because Hernandez may already have been incapacitated.
Jury Must Evaluate Each Use of Force
The appeals court emphasized that approximately one second elapsed between the fourth and fifth shots, providing an opportunity for the officer to reassess the threat.
Rather than deciding the issue as a matter of law, the court ruled that a jury should determine whether Hernandez continued to pose an immediate threat at the time of each additional shot.
The Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office argued in its appeal that requiring officers to reassess deadly-force decisions moment by moment during life-threatening encounters was unrealistic. The Supreme Court, however, declined to intervene, leaving the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning intact.
Potential Impact on the Yong Yang Case
Legal observers believe the ruling may influence future officer-involved shooting (OIS) litigation by expanding judicial scrutiny beyond the initial decision to use deadly force.
Instead of asking only whether an officer was justified in firing the first shot, courts and juries may increasingly examine whether every subsequent shot remained necessary and whether the perceived threat continued throughout the encounter.
That legal framework could become highly relevant in the federal lawsuit involving Yong Yang.
Yang was fatally shot in 2024 by LAPD Officer Andres Lopez after family members sought assistance from the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health (DMH) to transport Yang, who was experiencing a mental health crisis, to a hospital.
A DMH clinician, Soo Tae Yoon, contacted police to assist at the scene.
According to the family’s lawsuit, officers, including Lopez, were equipped with less-lethal options such as Tasers but instead fired three rounds after Yang allegedly approached while holding a knife.
Police Shooting Jury Decision Could Influence Future OIS Litigation
The Supreme Court’s decision does not establish that every police shooting should proceed to trial. Instead, it reinforces the principle that juries—not judges alone—may determine whether each individual use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
For the Yang lawsuit, several issues are likely to become central at trial: whether all three shots fired by Officer Lopez were necessary, whether less-lethal alternatives such as a Taser could reasonably have been used, and whether Yang continued to pose an immediate threat at the moment each shot was fired.
The ruling signals a potential shift in excessive force litigation by encouraging courts to evaluate police shootings on a shot-by-shot basis, rather than treating an entire encounter as a single use of force. That approach could shape future OIS cases well beyond Los Angeles.
