Deadly Force

Officers responding to domestic violence call entitled to qualified immunity on ground they did not violate any clearly established law when they shot and killed suspect who raised hammer behind his head and took a stance as if he was about to throw hammer or charge at officers; Court does not reach issue of whether officers who recklessly create a situation that requires deadly force would violate Fourth Amendment, distinguishing cases that stand for that proposition from this case on the facts.

Factual disputes precluded appeal of qualified immunity issue; question was whether suspect continued to pose threat of serious harm when he was shot; “shooting an unarmed and surrendering suspect who was not actively resisting in the moments before shooting and who posed a diminishing threat would violate clearly established law. Deadly force is warranted only when an immediate threat of serious harm to the officers is present.

Outrageous decision by Judge William Pryor; officer did not use excessive force when at conclusion of high-speed chase, suspect crashed into bushes, officer got out of car behind and to the right of suspect’s car, suspect started backing up, officer fired 11 shots through back windshield and side windows as car passed near him, car rolled across the road and came to a stop with engine running, officer then changed magazines and fired another 10 shots at front of car; Quotes that plaintiffs can expect defendants to use: “When an officer is on foot and standing in close proximity to a suspect

Officer used excessive force when he fired at plaintiff’s car from 8 feet, although plaintiff had not obeyed orders to stop and had evaded talking to police, where car was inching forward slowly, officer had walked in front of car, officer did not give deadly force warning, and there was no critical need to prevent a known dangerous person from escaping and harming others; officer entitled to qualified immunity, however, because court finds no case on point.

Right of suspect in domestic disturbance to be free from deadly force was clearly established where he did not present imminent threat of death or serious injury at time of shooting, even where officer felt attacked earlier and even if he believed suspect had previously posed a threat.

Disputes of fact precluded summary judgment: whether deadly force was necessary to protect suspect’s wife, whether officer reasonably believed suspect was going to attack him, whether officer gave warning before shooting, whether officer reasonably thought suspect was going to seize his gun; if officer could not see where suspect’s wife was relative to his line of fire, he was not acting to protect her when he fired at suspect (citing Craighead v. Scott, 399 F.3d 954 (8th Cir.

Court awards qualified immunity to officers for shooting woman who called 911 and stated she had a gun and would shoot anyone who came to her residence; when police arrived woman came out of her house with BB handgun that resembled a .45 caliber pistol in her right hand, began to raise her hand, walked to her car, leaned on its hood and turned back toward her house; officers began firing when she first began to raise gun and continued until she collapsed after turning toward her house; she had placed gun on hood of car but that was not visible to officers; video was recorded by dashcam; dis

Use of deadly force against suspect who repeatedly ignored commands such as to show her hands, place hands on hood of vehicle, or get down, and who then reached her hand behind her back toward waistband, which officer perceived to be a reach for a weapon, did not violate clearly established rights.

Fact disputes precluded summary judgment as to whether decedent was resisting or posed threat of serious physical injury so as to warrant prone maximal-restraint position; despite Scott v. Harris, 5th Circuit treats deadly force as a “special subset of excessive force claims”; prone maximal-restraint position poses substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury and thus is deadly force; unnecessarily placing person in prone maximal-restraint position is a violation of clearly established rights foreclosing qualified immunity.

Hostage from bank robbery was shot ten times by police; court rejects officer’s motion for summary judgment in which he claimed he did not intend to shoot her and never saw her, “court may not simply accept what may be a self-serving account by the police officer”; plaintiff posed no threat because she had raised her hands in surrender; circumstantial evidence was sufficient to warrant finding officer intended to shoot her: fact that she was repeatedly struck by bullets strong implied she was in his line of sight, it was broad daylight, fact she was struck so often makes it hard to believe