News Details

Manning Kass Achieves Full Defense Verdict for the City of Phoenix and Individual Officers

January 29, 2025

Our Governmental Entity Liability and Appellate Law (Strategy, Writs, & Appeals) teams earned a full defense verdict in a class action suit that went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Los Angeles Equity Partner Mildred K. O’Linn was brought in to work on this matter, and Los Angeles Partner Steven J. Renick argued before the Ninth Circuit. 

The case arose out of a complaint by two Arizona-based nonprofit organizations and four individuals against our clients, the City of Phoenix and several Phoenix police officers, claiming they violated their constitutional rights during a 2017 rally held by President Trump at the Phoenix Convention Center. In anticipation of the rally and accompanying counter-protests, the Phoenix Police Department partnered with federal, state, and local agencies, as well as local groups who had notified the police department that they were planning demonstrations, to devise a security plan and coordinate logistics. This included designating two separate areas: one fenced-off zone for security (the “Public Safety Zone”) and one for protest-assembly purposes (the “Free Speech Zone”). 

On the evening of the rally, select individuals in the Free Speech Zone began throwing rocks, water bottles, and other objects at police officers in the Public Safety Zone and at those waiting in line to enter the convention center. Other individuals attempted to breach the fence around the Public Safety Zone by pushing and shaking it with force. This behavior escalated around the time that the president’s motorcade left the convention center, with one individual throwing a canister that began emitting an unknown gas into the Public Safety Zone and another throwing a pyrotechnic object at officers, which burned for a few minutes. As a result, Phoenix Police Department officers used non-lethal devices – including tear gas, pepper balls/spray, and flash-bang grenades – to disperse the crowd. They arrested a total of five people over the course of the day, none of whom were plaintiffs in this case.

Plaintiffs filed an action in the district court, claiming excessive force under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, deprivation of their First Amendment freedom of speech, and discrimination against protestors in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The district court certified the two classes and granted summary judgment to our clients on all claims, except for the Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims asserted against specific Phoenix Police Department officers by three of the individual plaintiffs, who were physically impacted by the devices used to disperse the crowd. Both parties appealed the decision: our clients appealed the partial denial of summary judgment, arguing that the individual police officers were entitled to qualified immunity, and the plaintiffs appealed the partial judgment against them. 

On appeal, the Court reversed the district court’s partial denial of summary judgment and affirmed its partial grant of summary judgment to our client, resulting in a full defense verdict. The panel of judges agreed that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they acted reasonably under the circumstances and did not violate clearly established law. Further, while the Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, there was no “seizure” of any of the class members as our clients’ use of airborne and auditory irritants was not objectively aimed at restraining any of the class members, even temporarily. 

The panel also upheld the district court’s partial grant of summary judgment, agreeing that there were sufficient objectively reasonable grounds in this incident to establish the clear and present danger of an immediate threat to public safety, peace, or order. Further, the Court concurred that, given the quickly escalating situation, the officers dispersed the crowd due to legitimate law enforcement objectives and not because of any improper purpose to harm or retaliatory intent.

Mildred K. O’Linn is the Co-Leader of the Governmental Entity Liability team. She has an unparalleled background as an attorney and technical expert in peace officer civil liability, use of force, training and tactics, and the defense of governmental entities. In her 40-year legal career, Ms. O’Linn has been repeatedly recognized for her skills as a litigator. She is a member of the distinguished American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), an award only bestowed upon proven trial attorneys, as well as a Senior Fellow for the Litigation Counsel of America, an invitation-only trial lawyer honorary society representing less than 0.5% of American lawyers.

Steven J. Renick is a member of the Appellate Law (Strategy, Writs, & Appeals) team. He has concentrated on appellate law for over 25 years, handling a wide range of cases in both the federal and the state courts, and representing both plaintiffs and defendants. He has acted as lead counsel in more than 100 appellate matters, thirteen of which have resulted in published opinions. Mr. Renick has been certified as an appellate law specialist by the Board of Legal Specialization of the State Bar of California since August 2000, and he has served on the Appellate Law Advisory Commission to the Board of Legal Specialization. He has also been named a 2009-2018 and 2023-2024 Super Lawyer.