Use of deadly force against decedent who had struck officer in the face, resisted arrest despite taser discharges, and bit down on officer’s finger while twisting and turning was objectively reasonable because officer could have reasonably believed that decedent posed a serious threat of physical harm.
Following a high speed chase, plaintiffs stopped, then made a three-point turn in a controlled manner and their vehicle was moving slowly forward, not accelerating and not pointed directly at officers; officers who fired upon them “seized” both driver and passenger; court rejects officers’ claim that passenger was not seized because they intended to shoot only driver, because stopping car would have seized passenger; construing facts in favor of plaintiffs, seizure of slowly moving car was unreasonable where officers could have easily stepped out of vehicle’s path to avoid danger; officers
When officer fired eight shots through closed door of plaintiff’s home, plaintiff was seized within meaning of Fourth Amendment although he was not struck by the shots; this was a show of authority with acquisition of control, a reasonable person would believe he was not free to leave with the officer firing at his house; mere fact that plaintiff said he had a gun and then opened door would not justify using deadly force, but court cannot resolve on summary judgment what officer perceived when plaintiff opened door; under plaintiff’s version of facts, that plaintiff was unarmed when he open
Reversing summary judgment in favor of officers who shot and killed decedent in his ex-wife’s garage; “the totality of the facts to be considered in determining whether the level of force was reasonable includes any immediately connected actions by the officers that escalated a non-lethal situation to a lethal one”; facts taken in light most favorable to plaintiff were that severity of underlying crime (trespass) was low, officers had not intended to arrest decedent initially thus he was not resisting or attempting to evade arrest, defendant was armed with hammer but jury could conclude he
Officer entitled to qualified immunity for shooting plaintiff in the back when he moved as though he was reaching into his waistband, where multiple witnesses had told her that suspect was armed, although plaintiff was patted down by another officer just before he fled and that officer removed nothing from him, because no previous case clearly established that a pat down that recovers nothing eliminates an officer’s objectively reasonable belief that suspect was armed and dangerous; court says whether probable cause existed was a legal issue, not a factual one.
Officers reasonably used deadly force against auto theft suspect who led police on dangerous high-speed chase at night, refused to stop at end of street, and drove vehicle near, toward, and amongst officers on foot.
Tenth Circuit law is that “[t]he reasonableness of the use of force depends not only on whether the officers were in danger at the precise moment that they used force, but also on whether the officers’ own reckless or deliberate conduct during the seizure unreasonably created the need to use such force”; jury instruction to that effect was not required in this case because officer was protected by qualified immunity for his alleged recklessness in leaving his vehicle to approach plaintiff in his car.
Law was clearly established that officer could not shoot person with psychiatric disability in his own home who was incapacitated and no longer posed a threat, even though he had previously been armed: “the suspect’s possession of a weapon at some point in the incident does not provide an officer with carte blanche to use deadly force”; officer’s conduct violated Fourth Amendment but did not “shock the conscience,” thus did not justify substantive due process award to deceased’s father for his liberty interest in the companionship and society of his son.
Rejecting claim that officers created situation that ultimately led to subject’s death by failing to make a plan for the encounter, failing to secure knife block in kitchen, and questioning subject aggressively, provoking his violent resistance; such actions did not violate Fourth Amendment and did not render officers’ subsequent use of force unreasonable; court distinguishes earlier cases where officer’s unreasonable actions created situation where deadly force became essentially inevitable.
Officer not entitled to summary judgment on use of deadly force without warning where decedent was arrested for minor offense and jury could find decedent posed no threat of serious physical harm or death to officers; resisting arrest alone is not enough to justify use of deadly force; assuming facts in light favorable to plaintiff, shooting decedent without warning who was being arrested for minor offense after he struggled with officers and grabbed at taser to avoid repeated stunning, but never gained control of it, was “‘so obviously at the very core of what the Fourth Amendment prohibit