Conlogue v. Hamilton, 906 F.3d 150

On Aug. 3, 2014, Lewis Conlogue engaged in a ~3.5 hour standoff with police after his wife called 911 reporting suicidal threats and that he was "very good with guns."
Conlogue initially sat with a semi-automatic handgun pointed at his head; multiple officers established a perimeter and repeatedly warned him to drop the weapon.
During the standoff Conlogue retrieved a knife, made gun-like gestures at officers, displayed and inserted a loaded magazine, and at one point pointed the loaded pistol at roughly a 45° angle over the heads of three troopers.
Trooper Fiske communicated escalating fear over the radio; Hamilton (a tactical sergeant) heard the radio traffic and, after about 11 seconds following a final warning to disarm, fired one shot that killed Conlogue.
Conlogue’s estate sued under §1983 (excessive force) and state-law claims; after discovery the district court granted Hamilton summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.
The First Circuit affirmed, holding an objectively reasonable officer could have concluded deadly force was necessary to stop an imminent threat and that adequate warnings had been given.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hamilton violated the Fourth Amendment by using deadly force	Conlogue was not pointing the gun directly at officers and had been subject to a long standoff; deadly force was unreasonable	Conlogue pointed a loaded firearm over officers' heads after repeated warnings; Hamilton reasonably perceived an imminent threat	Hamilton entitled to qualified immunity; use of deadly force was objectively reasonable
Whether Hamilton is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established	Estate: an officer would have known shooting was unlawful under governing precedent (cites McKenney and proximity concerns)	Hamilton: no controlling precedent would have put a reasonable officer on notice; circumstances permitted deadly force after warnings	Qualified immunity applies because no controlling authority made the illegality of Hamilton’s conduct clearly established

Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (doctrine of qualified immunity)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (objective standard for qualified immunity)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (use-of-force reasonableness framework)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (flexible qualified-immunity prong sequencing)
Jarrett v. Town of Yarmouth, 331 F.3d 140 (deadly force allowed for imminent threat)
McKenney v. Mangino, 873 F.3d 75 (First Circuit decision stressing context; contrasted facts)
Young v. City of Providence, 404 F.3d 4 (warning requirement evaluated by adequacy and context)
Ciolino v. Gikas, 861 F.3d 296 (consider contemporaneous perceptions of other officers in reasonableness analysis)
Cooper v. Sheehan, 735 F.3d 153 (deadly force may be reasonable where suspect’s handling of weapon threatens officers)
Napier v. Town of Windham, 187 F.3d 177 (officer need not have gun pointed directly at him to reasonably fear danger)
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (warning should be given when feasible before deadly force is used)