38 F.4th 1234
10th Cir.2022Background
- A Los Angeles "swatter" placed a false 911 call reporting a murder and hostage situation at Andrew Finch’s Wichita home; Finch and his family were innocent and at home.
- Multiple Wichita officers responded at night; commands were shouted from different directions and officers did not identify themselves as police.
- Finch opened the front door, raised his hands, then made movements perceived differently by officers; Officer Justin Rapp, positioned about 40 yards away with a rifle, fired one shot about 10 seconds after Finch appeared and killed him. Finch was unarmed.
- The 911 caller was later convicted and sentenced; criminal and administrative investigations cleared Rapp; the district attorney declined criminal charges.
- Finch’s next of kin sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: excessive force against Rapp, supervisory liability against Sgt. Jonker, and Monell municipal liability against the City of Wichita.
- The district court denied summary judgment/qualified immunity for Rapp but granted summary judgment for Jonker and the City; the Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial as to Rapp and affirmed the grant as to the City.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force / Qualified immunity (Rapp) | Finch argues Rapp used unreasonable, deadly force against an unarmed, nonthreatening person; thus no qualified immunity. | Rapp contends a reasonable officer could have believed Finch posed an immediate threat, so qualified immunity applies. | Court: Accepting district-court facts favoring Finch, a reasonable jury could find a Fourth Amendment violation and the law was clearly established; denial of qualified immunity affirmed. |
| Municipal liability (Monell) | Finch contends City policies (inadequate administrative investigations/discipline and a custom of shooting unthreatening civilians) caused the violation. | City argues no unconstitutional policy or shown pattern; causation and deliberate indifference not established. | Court: Finch failed to show a policy/custom and direct causal link or deliberate indifference; summary judgment for City affirmed. |
| Supervisory liability (Jonker) | Finch asserted Jonker failed to supervise/was liable for Rapp’s conduct. | Jonker argued insufficient evidence linking his supervisory actions to a constitutional violation. | Court: District court’s grant of summary judgment for Jonker was proper (affirmed by this appeal). |
| Scope of interlocutory qualified-immunity review | Finch: district-court factual findings must be accepted on interlocutory review. | Rapp: appellate court may review video/facts de novo and overturn factual inferences. | Court: Appellate review limited to legal questions; must accept district-court factual inferences unless one of narrow exceptions applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7 (qualified immunity protects all but plainly incompetent or knowing violations)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (use-of-force claims judged by Fourth Amendment reasonableness)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires unconstitutional policy or custom)
- Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (Monell causation requires direct causal link)
- Zuchel v. Spinharney, 890 F.2d 273 (denial of qualified immunity where plaintiff was unarmed but shot)
- Zia Trust Co. ex rel. Causey v. Montoya, 597 F.3d 1150 (officer cannot shoot absent serious threat)
- Walker v. City of Orem, 451 F.3d 1139 (deadly force unreasonable where suspect not posing immediate threat)
- Huff v. Reeves, 996 F.3d 1082 (Tenth Circuit example holding deadly force unreasonable where person posed no threat)