865 F.3d 1119
8th Cir.2017Background
- On March 29, 2013, Officers Megan Gates and Kevin Colhour responded near Waylen Wealot’s home after a disturbance; Waylen fired multiple shots at a minivan and ran toward his backyard, discarding his gun along the west side of his house.
- Officers pursued on foot across an adjacent lot; Gates was 3–6 feet behind Waylen when she fired eight times and Colhour fired two times; Waylen died and his gun was recovered 5–7 feet from his body.
- Waylen’s mother, Anna Wealot, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force) and Missouri wrongful death statute; defendants moved for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity and official immunity.
- The district court granted summary judgment, finding officers’ use of deadly force objectively reasonable (qualified immunity) and dismissing state wrongful-death claims on official-immunity grounds.
- On appeal, the Eighth Circuit held there are genuine disputes of material fact (whether officers saw Waylen discard the weapon and whether he turned with hands raised to surrender) that preclude qualified immunity at summary judgment; it reversed as to the § 1983 excessive-force claims and remanded, but affirmed dismissal of the state wrongful-death claims (no evidence of malice or bad faith).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers used constitutionally excessive (deadly) force | Gates and Colhour shot an unarmed, surrendering Waylen after he discarded his gun; genuine disputes about whether officers saw the discard or that Waylen had hands raised | Officers reasonably believed Waylen posed an immediate deadly threat (he had fired at the van and was seen running with a gun) | Reversed district court on § 1983 claims; factual disputes (saw gun discarded; hands raised) preclude qualified immunity and must be resolved at trial |
| Whether qualified immunity shields officers | Qualified immunity unavailable if factual disputes show clearly established Fourth Amendment right not to be shot while unarmed/surrendering | Officers reasonably (even if mistaken) believed deadly force necessary; qualified immunity applies | Summary judgment on qualified immunity improper because genuine disputes of material fact exist |
| Whether municipal/command defendants are liable | Municipal liability depends on finding individual liability for constitutional violation | Municipal liability improper absent individual liability or record support | Remanded; claims against police chief/board restored for district court to reconsider after individual-liability resolution |
| Whether official immunity bars Missouri wrongful-death claims | Shooting an unarmed, surrendering person can show malice or bad faith, so official immunity should not apply | Use of force is discretionary; no evidence of malice or bad faith here — only frustration and split-second decisions | Affirmed: official immunity bars wrongful-death claims because insufficient evidence of malice or bad faith |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity framework)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (objective-qualified-immunity standard)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (reasonableness standard for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (deadly force allowable only to prevent escape when suspect poses significant threat)
- Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (application of Garner to qualified-immunity analysis)
- Loch v. City of Litchfield, 689 F.3d 961 (officer’s reasonable belief that unarmed suspect remained dangerous)
- Capps v. Olson, 780 F.3d 879 (jury may find an officer’s mistaken belief unreasonable)
- Craighead v. Lee, 399 F.3d 954 (notice that deadly force cannot be used unless suspect poses significant threat)