Ninth Circuit Court: Border Patrol Agents Seek Immunity for Killing Unarmed Native American

• Three Border Patrol agents shot and killed an unarmed Native American man on his front lawn in May 2023.
• The Ninth Circuit panel is considering granting qualified immunity to the agents, despite concerns about the reliability of edited body camera footage.
• Lawyers are warning that relying too heavily on incomplete and edited video evidence can be problematic in lawsuits involving law enforcement officers.

Whether he “tossed” or “threw” the knife is immaterial to whether Mattia presented a threat, Stitt countered.

A Ninth Circuit panel is considering whether to grant qualified immunity to three Border Patrol agents who shot and killed Raymond Mattia, an unarmed man on his front lawn in the Tohono O'odham Nation. The incident occurred in May 2023, when Mattia was approached by a group of agents investigating a report of gunshots. He stepped outside carrying a sheathed hunting knife, which he immediately dropped onto the ground after being commanded to do so. However, when ordered to remove his other hand from his pocket, Mattia removed it while holding a black cell phone, leading the agents to believe it was a gun and opening fire.

The family of Raymond Mattia is arguing that the Ninth Circuit panel cannot rely on an edited and incomplete body camera compilation to challenge claims made in the lawsuit. The video, which was produced by the DOJ, has been described as a selection of clips from different feeds, with some parts redacted. This raises questions about the reliability of such footage as evidence, particularly when it comes to split-second judgments made by law enforcement officers. Lawyers should be cautious when using body camera footage in lawsuits and consider alternative methods for establishing facts.

The Border Patrol agents are seeking qualified immunity for their actions, which would shield them from liability despite the fact that Mattia was unarmed. However, the Ninth Circuit panel is unlikely to reverse the denial of qualified immunity, citing concerns about the incomplete and edited nature of the body camera footage. The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of giving law enforcement officers 'breathing room' in situations like this, but it remains to be seen whether this will be enough to protect the agents from liability.

This development highlights the challenges of relying on incomplete and edited body camera footage as evidence, particularly when it comes to split-second judgments made by law enforcement officers. Lawyers should be cautious when using such footage in lawsuits and consider alternative methods for establishing facts.

Source: Original reporting via AP News