Deadly Force

When officers are called for wellness checks or other non-criminal calls, this Court looks at what the officer learned and observed about the situation before the officer even engaged with anyone on the scene;” in this case officer’s asserted belief that he was arriving at a volatile scene was not supported; “even if the person’s hands are not visible—and even if he appears to be suspiciously reaching for something in his clothing—these facts would not lead a reasonable officer to believe that the person posed an immediate threat of serious harm;” where decedent was not acting aggressively

Officer who had heard “shots fired!” call on his radio, used reasonable force when he shot and killed decedent, who was armed with a gun and running toward onlookers and another officer, and refused to stop and drop gun when ordered to do so by officer.

Officers responding to domestic violence call involving multiple gunshots were sent to wrong address, innocent decedent came out of his home with pistol because he thought he heard a prowler, officer shot decedent without warning when he began to raise his weapon; court awards qualified immunity because of lack of previous case on point, noting that warning is not always required before firing.

Scott v. Harris does not require court, on the basis of largely consistent story from police and other bystanders that justified police shooting, to disregard deposition testimony of bystander that he initially lied to police during investigation and truth was that officers brutally beat decedent even though he did not resist, that they could easily have handcuffed him, and deadly force was not required; factual issues were for a jury and qualified immunity should have been denied with respect to use of deadly force.

Reversing summary judgment for officer in shooting case due to factual disputes; officer claimed deceased was turning and momentum carried him around, explaining how he was shot in the back, court notes if he was shot in the back while running away unarmed that would violate clearly established rights; “With deadly force cases, special difficulties can arise during summary judgment. Often, the officer has killed the only other potential witness.

Plaintiff was shot by officer as he attempted to drive away from crash at conclusion of high-speed chase, plaintiff eluded officers and checked himself into a hospital; plaintiff was “seized” although he avoided capture; factual issues existed about whether shooting officer or others were in danger; court denies qualified immunity, concluding “a suspect fleeing in a vehicle, who has not otherwise displayed threatening behavior, has the constitutional right to be free from the use of deadly force when it is no longer reasonable for an officer to believe his or others’ lives are in immediate

Critical question in cases involving use of deadly force during vehicular flight is “whether the officer has ‘reason to believe that the [fleeing] car presents an imminent danger’ to ‘officers and members of the public in the area.’”; deadly force is justified against “a driver who objectively appears ready to drive into an officer or bystander with his car; deadly force is generally not justified “once the car moves away, leaving the officer and bystanders in a position of safety[,]” but an officer may “continue to fire at a fleeing vehicle even when no one is in the vehicle’s direct path

No constitutional violation where officer shot driver of van when officer was standing on running board of vehicle and driver fired ignition and car lurched forward, officer reasonably believed he was at risk of serious physical harm.

Officer investigating report of man with a gun entitled to qualified immunity for shooting and killing man who failed to stop in response to commands, verbally challenged officers, concealed hands in front of waistband and then lifted shirt with left hand and quickly withdrew right hand from waist band; officer could reasonably believe he was reaching for a gun although as it turned out, man was unarmed; court states, “regarding such circumstances, the Fourth Amendment is clear: officers need not wait until they see the gun’s barrel or the knife’s blade before using deadly force to protect

Affirming denial of summary judgment motion of officer, court concludes it had no jurisdiction to contradict facts as found by district court; officer fired at decedent’s van striking only the driver’s side and rear of the vehicle, based on that and other evidence court concluded vehicle posed no immediate threat to officer or others; law was clearly established that use of deadly force when threat to officer was not actual and imminent was constitutionally unreasonable.