27 F.4th 1346
8th Cir.2022Background
- Officers Chris Chiprez and Joshua Riffel stopped Marquis Jones for loud music; Jones fled the traffic stop on foot.
- Riffel intercepted and tackled Jones; he observed a handgun fall or be in Jones’s hand and shouted to Chiprez that Jones had a gun.
- Chiprez pursued, yelled “Drop it!”; Jones dropped an item (disputed whether Chiprez saw the gun drop), ran into a fenced yard, got down on the ground, and was shot in the chest by Chiprez and killed.
- The estate sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force and arrest without probable cause) and brought a state loss-of-consortium claim; both sides moved for partial summary judgment.
- The district court denied Chiprez qualified immunity, identifying two genuine disputes of material fact: whether Chiprez saw Jones drop the gun and whether Jones was in a “firing position” when shot.
- Chiprez appealed denial of qualified immunity; the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding the factual disputes precluded resolving the constitutional question on summary judgment and that the right was clearly established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chiprez’s use of deadly force violated the Fourth Amendment | Jones was unarmed (dropped the gun), was nearly prone when shot, so deadly force was objectively unreasonable | Chiprez reasonably but mistakenly believed Jones remained armed and was in a firing position | Denied summary judgment on qualified immunity—genuine disputes of material fact (including bodycam/autopsy evidence) could support a constitutional violation |
| Whether the constitutional right was clearly established | Garner and subsequent Eighth Circuit precedent put officers on notice that deadly force against a fleeing, unarmed, non-dangerous suspect is unlawful | Chiprez contends facts differ and his belief was reasonable, so no fair warning on these facts | Right was clearly established under Garner; if a jury finds Chiprez knew Jones was unarmed, the violation would be clearly established |
| Whether the interlocutory appeal is reviewable | Estate: denial based on evidentiary disputes makes appeal non-appealable under Johnson v. Jones | Chiprez: appealable because it raises the legal question whether the right was clearly established | Court has jurisdiction because the appeal implicates the clearly established legal question |
| Effect of discovery admission and autopsy opinions | Estate: admission related only to initial (missed) shots; other evidence shows fatal shot was unreasonable | Chiprez: discovery admission concedes reasonableness; autopsy opinions should be excluded | Admission does not dispose of the case; must construe evidence for nonmovant under Tolan; autopsy-opinion issue not addressed on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force against fleeing suspect permitted only if significant threat of death or serious injury exists)
- Wealot v. Brooks, 865 F.3d 1119 (8th Cir. 2017) (reversed qualified immunity where disputes existed about whether suspect dropped gun and whether suspect was surrendering)
- Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (2014) (court must view facts in light most favorable to nonmovant on qualified-immunity review)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified-immunity two-step: constitutional violation and clearly established law)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective-reasonableness standard for excessive-force claims)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (qualified-immunity framework and allowance for reasonable mistakes of fact)
- Moore v. Indehar, 514 F.3d 756 (8th Cir. 2008) (use of deadly force against fleeing unarmed suspect may be objectively unreasonable)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (clearly established right must be defined with sufficient specificity)