Estate of Ryan Ronquillo v. City & County of Denver
16-1476
| 10th Cir. | Dec 18, 2017Background
- In July 2014 officers located Ryan Ronquillo in a car while executing warrants for aggravated motor vehicle theft; a surveillance video recorded the encounter.
- Unmarked and marked police vehicles converged and officers approached Ronquillo’s vehicle; video shows contact between Ronquillo’s vehicle and Deputy Ingersoll’s SUV as officers moved on the car.
- Officers allegedly tried to extract Ronquillo from the vehicle and struck him; Ronquillo backed out over a median and left the camera frame, then returned in the vehicle toward officers.
- As the vehicle re-entered the frame and moved toward officers (one officer visibly jumped), several officers fired, killing Ronquillo.
- The estate sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force against the individual officers and for municipal liability against the City and County of Denver; the district court granted dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) on qualified immunity grounds and the estate appealed.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding the complaint failed to plausibly allege a Fourth Amendment violation and, alternatively, that the law was not clearly established; municipal liability therefore also failed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers used excessive force during initial extraction | Ronquillo was nonviolent and officers unlawfully used force to remove him | Video shows officers identifiable and the situation was rapidly unfolding; use of force was reasonable | Court: Allegations contradicted/insufficient; force during extraction was objectively reasonable or too attenuated to show causation for later shooting |
| Whether deadly force was excessive when officers shot Ronquillo | Returning vehicle did not justify deadly force; officers’ shooting violated Fourth Amendment | Officer reasonably perceived an imminent threat from a vehicle moving toward officers | Court: At the precise moments force was used, a reasonable officer could have believed Ronquillo posed an immediate threat; no constitutional violation pled |
| Whether qualified immunity is defeated because law was clearly established | Estate contends relevant Fourth Amendment rules prohibit gratuitous force against nonresisting suspects | Defendants argue precedent permits deadly force when an officer reasonably perceives imminent danger from a vehicle | Court: Law was not clearly established in these specific circumstances; qualified immunity applies |
| Whether City and County of Denver is liable under § 1983 | Municipality liable for policies/practices causing constitutional violation | Municipal liability requires an underlying constitutional violation by officers | Court: No municipal liability because no constitutional violation by officers was found |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (establishes Fourth Amendment reasonableness balancing test)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force use against fleeing suspect analysis)
- Thomas v. Durastanti, 607 F.3d 655 (10th Cir. 2010) (vehicle can constitute a weapon; reasonableness judged from officer’s perspective)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity analysis and early-stage resolution of immunity questions)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (2015) (clearly established law must place question beyond debate)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (clearly established law must not be defined at high level of generality)
- Davis v. Clifford, 825 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir. 2016) (use of disproportionate force against nonthreatening suspect can be excessive force)
- Allen v. Muskogee, 119 F.3d 837 (10th Cir. 1997) (initial reckless officer conduct may be immediately connected to a later threat)
- Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012 (2014) (applying Graham factors to deadly force in vehicle flight contexts)
- Sevier v. City of Lawrence, 60 F.3d 695 (10th Cir. 1995) (causation analysis where suspect flees and later returns)