US Supreme Court denies Sonoma County’s petition on Andy Lopez shooting case

The U.S. Supreme Court Monday cleared the way for a federal jury to hear the case against a Sonoma County sheriff’s deputy who shot and killed Santa Rosa teenager Andy Lopez in 2013 when the deputy mistook a toy pellet gun the teen was carrying for an assault rifle.

The justices denied the county’s petition to give then-Deputy Erick Gelhaus immunity from civil liability in the fatal shooting, putting an end to an attempt by the county to reverse a lower court’s decision. In September, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that 13-year-old Lopez posed no immediate threat to then-Deputy Erick Gelhaus and a jury should decide if the deputy used excessive force.

“At this point, either the county settles the case or the case goes to trial,” said Gerald Peters, an Agoura Hills-based attorney representing Lopez’ parents in the appeals process.

The case will return to the U.S. District Court in Oakland and proceed toward a trial.

Lopez’ parents are suing the county and Gelhaus in federal court, seeking unspecified damages and arguing the deputy used excessive force and violated the boy’s civil rights.

Lopez was killed Oct. 22, 2013 on Moorland Avenue on Santa Rosa’s southwestern outskirts. From a patrol car, Gelhaus spotted the child walking on the sidewalk carrying, barrel downward, an airsoft gun designed to look like an AK-47. The orange tip indicating the gun was a toy had been broken off.

The deputy stopped the patrol car about 65 feet behind Lopez, got out and crouched behind his door, ordering the boy to drop the gun. Lopez began turning, and Gelhaus fired eight rounds, striking the teen seven times. Lopez died at the scene.

A Sonoma County District Attorney review found the shooting was justified and cleared Gelhaus of criminal wrongdoing. He was promoted to sergeant.

The family filed a federal civil rights lawsuit two weeks after the shooting.

Sonoma County’s lawyers have argued Gelhaus feared for his life and believed Lopez posed a deadly threat as the teen began to turn toward him.

In 2016, U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton denied the county’s request to give Gelhaus immunity, disagreeing that Gelhaus’ response was justified.

The county appealed, and in September Ninth Circuit judges denied the county’s bid to overturn the lower court decision, suggesting there were enough disputed facts in the case that it should be decided by a jury.

But appeals court justices said Gelhaus’ own statements indicate he didn’t know if Lopez was moving the airsoft rifle toward him before he started shooting at the boy within about three seconds after the deputy shouted a command.

The U.S. Supreme Court considers only a fraction of the thousands of cases filed each year. The court could have clarified critical legal issues in use of force cases faced by police agencies nationwide, and multiple law enforcement groups filed amicus curiae briefs in support of Sonoma County’s petition, including the California State Sheriffs’ Association, the California Police Chief’s Association and the California Peace Officers’ Association.

The organizations argued the Ninth Circuit’s opinion “will hamper officers’ abilities to react appropriately and safety to perceived deadly threats in providing law enforcement services in the field and will require officers to second-guess themselves.”

The U.S. Supreme Court denied Sonoma County’s petition without comment.

Franklin Zimring, professor at UC Berkeley School of Law, said the supreme court justices rarely review cases involving civil damages, which is the case in the Lopez family’s federal lawsuit. He said the denial sets no precedent and leaves the matter up to district courts for resolution.

“It’s bad news for the litigant (Sonoma County) but doesn’t change the law,” Zimring said.

You can reach Staff Writer Julie Johnson at 707-521-5220 or julie.johnson@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @jjpressdem.