73 F.4th 617
8th Cir.2023Background
- On Nov. 9, 2018, officers responded to a report that Travis Jordan was suicidal and emotionally disturbed; Jordan armed himself with a knife and refused commands to drop it.
- Jordan exited an enclosed porch, repeatedly yelled "Let's do this," and walked toward Officer Neal Walsh with the knife at his side from about 6–12 feet away.
- Walsh fired seven shots in rapid succession over roughly two seconds: three shots while Jordan stood and four shots after Jordan fell and dropped the knife.
- The district court bifurcated the shooting: it granted qualified immunity for the initial shots but denied it for the continued firing after Jordan fell.
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed the video, concluded the entire shooting was continuous and left only about one second after Jordan fell, and reversed, holding Walsh entitled to qualified immunity for the entire encounter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time to reassess after fall | Walsh had time to reassess and stop after Jordan dropped the knife and fell | Shooting was continuous (<2s); no realistic time to reassess | Video shows no pause; only ~1s after fall—no sufficient time to reassess |
| Excessive force (Fourth Amendment) | Continued shots after threat dissipated were excessive | Jordan advanced with a knife from 6–12 ft; deadly force could be reasonable | Under existing precedent, officer could reasonably believe an immediate threat existed |
| Clearly established law / Qualified immunity | Law was clearly established so Walsh should have known continued shooting was unlawful | No controlling or sufficiently similar precedent put Walsh on notice his conduct was unlawful | No case placed the specific question beyond debate; qualified immunity granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Morgan v. Cook, 686 F.3d 494 (8th Cir. 2012) (upheld officer’s shooting when suspect with knife advanced within ~12 feet)
- Roberts v. City of Omaha, 723 F.3d 966 (8th Cir. 2013) (distinguishes cases with pauses in firing that create factual disputes)
- Cole ex rel. Est. of Richards v. Hutchins, 959 F.3d 1127 (8th Cir. 2020) (recognizes that mere seconds can sometimes suffice to reassess a threat)
- Dillard v. O'Kelley, 961 F.3d 1048 (8th Cir. 2020) (explains clearly established law cannot be defined at a high level of generality)
- Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018) (Supreme Court: avoid high-level generality when assessing clearly established rights)
- Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (requirement of a controlling case or robust consensus to clearly establish law)
- Partridge v. City of Benton, 929 F.3d 562 (8th Cir. 2019) (deadly force reasonable if officer had probable cause to believe suspect posed serious harm)