Amy Hughes v. Andrew Kisela
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21186
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Officers responded to a "check welfare" call about a person hacking at a tree; three UAPD officers arrived and encountered Amy Hughes holding a large kitchen knife.
- Hughes walked toward Sharon Chadwick; officers ordered her to drop the knife; Hughes did not comply.
- A chain-link fence prevented officers from approaching; Corporal Andrew Kisela dropped and fired four shots through the fence, wounding (nonfatally) Hughes.
- Chadwick’s affidavit says Hughes appeared composed, held the knife down at her side, did not raise it, and may not have understood the commands; other officers did not corroborate Kisela’s claim that Hughes raised the knife.
- The district court granted Kisela summary judgment (including qualified immunity); the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding material factual disputes and remanding for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kisela used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment | Shooting an unarmed (kitchen knife), noncriminal, potentially mentally impaired person who did not pose an immediate threat was unreasonable | Kisela perceived an immediate threat to Chadwick and acted reasonably under split-second circumstances | Reversed summary judgment; material facts dispute reasonableness for a jury to decide |
| Whether Kisela is entitled to qualified immunity | Existing precedent clearly established that shooting a person who posed no immediate threat (and may be mentally impaired) is unlawful | A reasonable officer could have believed deadly force was lawful given perceived threat; no controlling case on all fours | Not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment given disputed facts; the right was clearly established under analogous precedents |
| Whether less-intrusive alternatives and adequacy of warnings preclude deadly force | Officers failed to use or adequately consider less-lethal options (e.g., Taser) and warnings may have been insufficient given Hughes’s apparent impairment | Taser could be ineffective/tangled in fence; officers gave warnings and had to act quickly | Existence of reasonable alternatives and warning sufficiency are disputed factual issues for a jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective-reasonableness test for excessive force)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force requires immediate threat to officers/others)
- Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272 (9th Cir. 2001) (shooting emotionally disturbed person who posed minimal threat can be unreasonable; guidance on diminished government interest)
- Glenn v. Washington Cty., 673 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2011) (remanded where facts left open whether deadly force was reasonable against a possibly impaired person with a knife)
- Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2010) (Graham factors and consideration of other relevant circumstances)
- Blanford v. Sacramento County, 406 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (qualified immunity affirmed where suspect carried a long saber and behaved threateningly)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity two-step framework)
- Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (qualified immunity protects reasonable, though mistaken, judgments)
- Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (2004) (in an obvious case, Graham standards can clearly establish unlawfulness without a body of identical precedent)