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.
Not clearly established in 2018 that shooting suspect in stationary car was excessive force, where officer stood in front of car and driver ignored multiple commands; whether second round of shots was reasonable depends upon whether car had already passed the officers.
Clearly established that carrying a weapon, without more, does not justify and officer’s decision to shoot, deadly force may only be used when another person is threatened with the weapon.
Well established in this Circuit that carrying a weapon, without more, does not justify an officer’s choice to shoot”; where jury could conclude that suspect was dropping weapon, not threatening anyone with it, officer would violate clearly established rights by shooting him; court notes that “the intensity of the situation emanated not from [the suspect], but from the volume and vigor of the officer’s commands.
Where subject had access to two guns not far beyond his immediate reach, had
proven his willingness to use guns against officers, and was acting erratically and
displaying frighteningly unstable frame of mind, officer could reasonably interpret a
sudden lurch as commencement of attack and fire at subject.