Appeals court rules against Seattle cops who sued over Use of Force Policy

A federal appeals court panel on Tuesday unanimously voted to uphold the Seattle Police Department’s policy that regulates the use of force by officers, dismissing the argument that it infringed on the cops’ Second Amendment rights.

“The City of Seattle has a significant interest in regulating the use of department-issued firearms by its police officers, and the [Use of Force] Policy does not impose a substantial burden on the Second Amendment right to use a firearm for the core lawful purpose of self-defense,” District Judge William Hayes wrote on behalf of a three-judge panel that presided the court case Mahoney vs. City of Seattle.

The police force adopted the Use of Force Policy in 2012 as part of its reform agreement with the Justice Department, which required officers to use “objectively reasonable force, proportional to the threat or urgency of the situation” only when necessary as well as de-escalation techniques when possible.

A group of about 125 officers filed the lawsuit, claiming the city’s new rule violated their Second Amendment right to use their service weapons in cases of self-defense.{mosads}

“On behalf of the City, I welcome this confirmation that constitutional policing and officer safety go hand-in-hand,” said City Attorney Pete Holmes, whose Civil Division attorneys defended the department.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel disagreed with their argument, ruling that the policy is “constitutional under the Second Amendment because there is a reasonable fit between the [Use of Force] Policy and the City of Seattle’s important government interest in ensuring the safety of both the public and its police officers.”

The judges also determined that the policy does not restrict Seattle officers’ Second Amendment rights to protect themselves.

“We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Appellants’ Second Amendment claim,” Hayes wrote in the court’s conclusion.