Washington, D.C. — The family of an American Samoa man who died three years ago after he was arrested by police in downtown Honolulu argue that the deceased “did not pose an imminent threat of harm” to the three police officers who arrested him, and he “was not trying to run away.”

The deceased is Sheldon Paul Haleck, son of former DPS Commissioner, William Haleck, who along with Sheldon’s wife and siblings, filed a civil action suit in November 2015 at the federal court in Honolulu.

The plaintiffs contend, among other things, that the deceased was wrongfully seized, denied his liberty, and fatally assaulted by Honolulu police officers Christopher Chung, Samantha Critchlow, and Stephen Kardash.

Last year, the Honolulu federal court denied the defendants' motion for “summary judgment based on qualified immunity” under federal law over Sheldon’s death. The defendants appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued a ruling in July this year that “affirmed” the lower court’s ruling in “denying qualified immunity” for three police officers — whom last week filed with the US Supreme Court the Petition for Writ of Certiorari. (See Samoa News Dec. 21st edition for details).

Yesterday, the plaintiffs — through their attorney — filed a response opposing the defendant’s petition. They argue that Sheldon was a “defenseless man” and posed no threat to the public.

The Halecks presented two questions to the Supreme Court:

•    Whether the Ninth Circuit properly denied the officers qualified immunity by applying clearly established excessive force law to the facts and circumstances of this case;

•    Whether the Ninth Circuit, having found that the officers were serving in a care-taking function, properly applied the excessive force law in its analysis and constrained its review to reasonableness of the seizure based on the facts and circumstances of this case.

In their brief, the plaintiffs point out that the three officers asserted that they were entitled to deploy their “tasers multiple times and employ pepper spray a total of at least fourteen times, without warnings and within a span of just a few minutes,” against Sheldon, “a defenseless man who was incapable of understanding and complying with their directions to get out of a public roadway.”

Additionally, none of the officers claim to have been physically assaulted or threatened by Sheldon, who was unarmed. “He did not pose an imminent threat of harm to the officers or to any member of the public. He was not trying to run away,” the plaintiffs said.

“Because of the drugs in his system, combined with severe mental illness, Sheldon could not respond appropriately to [officers’] commands, so they continued to shoot and spray him until he finally fell to the pavement and died,” they argued.

Sheldon’s death was officially ruled a “homicide” by the Honolulu medical examiner in the June 24, 2015 “Autopsy Report”.

Plaintiffs claim that the police officers, “would have this Court determine, under the most troubling and, indeed, outrageous facts presented here, that because the Petitioner/ Defendant police officers were engaged in some form of ‘community policing’, the Petitioners are entitled to qualified immunity and their actions should be excused.”

“No court has ever issued any such opinion or decision — in any district or circuit court throughout the United States,” according to the plaintiffs.

The police officers’ “attempt to bootstrap and apply the community care-taking doctrine to an excessive force case would improperly expand the reach of the community care-taking doctrine and undermine long-established standards governing the proper use of force by law enforcement officers,” they argued.

Plaintiffs also offered counter statements in their brief in response to the police officers' filing. For example, the officers’ failure to warn Sheldon about their use of pepper spray and taser. They argued that the officers “deliberately ignored the disputed facts as to whether they warned Sheldon about their use of pepper spray and the taser and flatly state that ‘[t]hey warned [Sheldon] that they would use pepper spray if he did not comply’."

Furthermore, Chung, “warned [Sheldon] that he would use taser if he did not get on the sidewalk.”

Plaintiffs argue that the record before the Ninth Circuit “is replete with numerous inconsistencies between Petitioners written reports and their depositions that call into serious question any claims by Petitioners that they warned Sheldon before they ever used either pepper spray or the taser.”

The Ninth Circuit’s factual determination that Petitioners “pepper sprayed [Sheldon] multiple times without warnings” and Petitioner Chung tased Sheldon multiple times “without warning” is grounded in the record and comports with the directive that all facts in dispute must be viewed “in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”

Another counter statement by plaintiffs deals with the alleged threat or danger Sheldon posed towards the police officers. Plaintiffs argue that Sheldon posed no threat or danger to the officers. They said the lower court properly pointed out the existence of “disputes of fact as to the level of resistance made by [Sheldon].”

In arguments before the lower court, the officers “attempted to depict Sheldon” as an “immediate threat to safety” by arguing, in part, that Sheldon “refused to comply with their commands” and “he was significantly larger than Chung and Critchlow,” and “there was a risk that [Sheldon] would be hit by a passing car.”

Despite Petitioners’ attempts to argue otherwise, the record before the lower court “substantially supported the factual determination that Sheldon never presented a threat or danger to Petitioners or the public and that there were no risks due to oncoming traffic.” And this was the same conclusion reached by the Ninth Circuit.