In Scott v. Henrich, 39 F.3d 912 (9th Cir.1994) the Court held that even though the officers might have had "less intrusive alternatives available to them," and perhaps under departmental guidelines should have "developed a tactical plan" instead of attempting an immediate seizure, police officers "need not avail themselves of the least intrusive means of responding" and need only act "within that range of conduct we identify as reasonable." The Court affirmed summary judgment for the defendant police officers despite experts' reports stating that the officers should have called and waited for backup, rather than taking immediate action that led to deadly combat. The Court held that, even for summary judgment purposes, "the fact that an expert disagrees with the officer's actions does not render the officer's actions unreasonable."