Excessive force inquiry is confined to whether the officers or other persons were in danger at the moment of the threat that resulted in the officers' use of deadly force; the officers' actions leading up to the shooting are not relevant for the purposes of an excessive force inquiry in the Fifth Circuit.
Officer entitled to qualified immunity for shooting and killing armed suspect, pursued only for alleged driving offenses, who, when officers stopped his car, ran in a manner such that his right arm was pressed against his body and could not be seen by officers; court concludes, relying on “furtive gesture” line of cases, that officers could reasonably fear he had a gun and fear for their safety; court concludes it was immaterial whether they could see a gun or whether he made any threatening motions toward them; court holds that whether suspect’s flight posed a risk to officers or public wa
Officers entitled to qualified immunity for shooting and killing suspect in domestic call where suspect, although unarmed and not reaching for a weapon, used aggressive language, ignored an order from officers, and rushed toward officers in small and confined space; dissent by Judge Berzon.
Clearly established in 2018 that unarmed driver who had come to a stop and did not pose a threat to safety of officers or others had right to be free from unreasonable use of lethal force.
Clearly established that it would
violate Fourth Amendment to use deadly force against person who was holding firearm
and ignoring commands to drop it but who was standing still in a position of surrender,
was not firing the weapon or aiming it at any person, and was not otherwise making a
furtive or threatening movement that would suggest he had an intent to use the weapon
to harm the officer or anyone else, no qualified immunity.
Following slow speed chase
during which plaintiff committed traffic violations, officer shot plaintiff four times while
plaintiff was outside his truck, reaching into the door with his left hand; court at bench
trial concluded officer reasonably believed he might have been reaching for a weapon
because officer could not see his hand, despite fact that dashboard camera showed
both of plaintiff’s hands were empty, officer awarded qualified immunity, affirmed on
appeal.
Clearly established in 2017 that deadly force against person who called 911 for help, armed with a pistol and in throes of paranoia, would contravene the Fourth Amendment where subject was holding firearm in his hand, ignoring commands to drop the weapon, but standing still in a position of surrender, not firing the weapon or aiming it at any person, and not otherwise making a furtive or threatening movement that would suggest he had an intent to use the weapon to harm the officer or anyone else; citing prior case, court concludes “an officer does not possess the unfettered auth
Court credited officer’s testimony he could not see subject’s left hand at time he shot him, thus officer reasonably believed he was reaching for a gun and the use of deadly force was reasonable, although in fact subject was unarmed and dashcam video showed that, and subject had been pursued by police solely for failing to pull over for motor vehicle offenses.
Reasonable officer would not have had reason to believe that suspect fleeing in his vehicle because of a warrant for his arrest posed a threat of serious physical harm to officers or others where suspect was driving very slowly and braking to comply with officer's orders to stop, officer was either not in the path of the vehicle or could easily have stepped away, and none of the officers involved saw suspect drive in a reckless or dangerous manner; officer's use of deadly force by shooting at suspect in his vehicle violated suspect's Fourth Amendment rights; no qualified immunit
Clearly established that use of deadly force against person who officer knew was not dangerous was constitutional violation.