INDIANAPOLIS, Dec. 4, 2025 — The National Police Association (NPA) today announced the filing of an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Los Angeles Police Department Officer Toni McBride, framing her case as a pivotal stand for America’s embattled law enforcement. The brief, submitted in City of Los Angeles v. Estate of Daniel Hernandez (No. 25-538), urges the High Court to overturn a controversial Ninth Circuit decision and reaffirm that split-second police decisions made in the line of duty must not be paralyzed by courtroom second-guessing.
Officer McBride’s saga began with a chaotic April 2020 incident in South Los Angeles. A suspect high on methamphetamine caused multiple vehicle crashes and then emerged wielding a knife, advancing on McBride and ignoring her repeated commands to drop the weapon. With bystanders at risk, McBride fired to stop the threat. It took six shots over six seconds to finally subdue the knife-wielding assailant, who still clutched his weapon until the end.
A Los Angeles County investigation deemed the shooting justified, as did a Federal District Court judge and the Ninth Circuit panel, but in a sharply divided 6-5 vote, en banc review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upended that outcome, insisting a jury should second-guess her from the safety of a courthouse. This judicial whiplash set the stage for a Supreme Court battle to restore the legal shield for officers facing life-threatening attacks.
In its amicus brief, the NPA excoriates the Ninth Circuit’s approach as a betrayal of Supreme Court precedent and common sense. The Ninth Circuit majority effectively “repudiated the ‘reasonable officer’ construct required by this Court,” positing an “utterly unrealistic, quasi-judicial process of threat assessment as each shot is fired”, stated attorney for the NPA, James Buchal. By demanding that McBride pause to reassess in the middle of a deadly confrontation, the Ninth Circuit invited exactly the kind of judicial second-guessing the Supreme Court has warned against. “Police officers cannot effectively maintain control of violent offenders on the Nation’s streets, and prevent further injury to the public if their only option is to retreat,” Buchal continued, noting that stripping officers of decisive authority would create an unreasonable risk to the lives of police officers and the public.
The NPA’s brief places heavy emphasis on the physiological and tactical realities of lethal force encounters, realities the appellate judges, in the NPA’s view, dangerously ignored. When an armed suspect is charging or even after he falls wounded, he can still pose a mortal threat in the blink of an eye. Research cited in the brief confirms that a person shot multiple times can continue moving and fighting for crucial seconds (indeed, McBride’s assailant was still armed and struggling on the ground). When facing a crazed, knife-wielding attacker, even a moment’s hesitation can be fatal. The NPA’s brief vividly drives this point home, describing how an officer in McBride’s position experiences a flood of adrenaline and tunnel vision, with mere milliseconds to decide life or death. In such a scenario, McBride’s actions were not only reasonable but heroic.
The National Police Association is represented by James L. Buchal, of Murphy & Buchal LLP, in Portland, OR. The full brief is available on the Supreme Court docket under case number 25-538 and can be read here.
The National Police Association (NPA) is a nonprofit organization supporting law enforcement through advocacy, education, and the courts. For more information, visit NationalPolice.org.
