615 F. App'x 470
10th Cir.2015Background
- On Dec. 1, 2010 deputies responded to a domestic disturbance at King’s home; dispatch advised no known weapons and that King was mentally ill/off meds.
- Deputies Walker and Goodson stood ~25–30 yards from King; Deputy Hill remained 65–75 yards away. King was standing at or near the front door, unarmed, holding/draping a coat over his arm.
- Deputies claimed they thought a long gun might be concealed under the coat; neighbors testified King’s hands were visible and he could not have been holding a long gun.
- Hill retrieved an AR-15, aimed, and fired multiple rounds after verbal exchanges in which King shouted and made references to black powder and threats; King was shot and seriously injured but survived; he was unarmed and no weapon was found.
- The district court denied Deputy Hill qualified immunity, concluding King’s version of the facts showed excessive use of deadly force and the law was clearly established; Hill appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hill’s use of deadly force violated the Fourth Amendment | King: shooting an unarmed man who posed no immediate threat was excessive | Hill: he reasonably believed King was armed and posed immediate danger | Court: viewing King’s facts as true, deadly force was unreasonable — constitutional violation established |
| Whether the law was clearly established such that Hill lacks qualified immunity | King: precedent forbids shooting unarmed, nondangerous suspects | Hill: circumstances justified a reasonable mistake about a threat | Court: precedents (Garner, Zuchel, Zia, Walker) put this beyond debate; no immunity |
| Proper standard of review on interlocutory appeal | King: district court’s factual view must be taken as true for qualified immunity denial | Hill: challenges district court’s factual findings | Court: limited to legal questions; must accept district court’s view of disputed facts on appeal |
| Application of Graham factors (severity, threat, resistance) | King: facts show minor offense, no immediate threat, limited resistance | Hill: King’s threats/behavior and deputies’ distance/perception made deadly force reasonable | Court: under plaintiff’s version, Graham factors weigh against reasonableness of shooting |
Key Cases Cited
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct.) (police may not use deadly force to seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect)
- Zuchel v. Spinharney, 890 F.2d 273 (10th Cir.) (denial of qualified immunity where factual disputes could show officer’s shooting of apparently unarmed person was unreasonable)
- Zia Trust Co. ex rel. Causey v. Montoya, 597 F.3d 1150 (10th Cir.) (officer’s use of deadly force unreasonable where vehicle’s movement did not create clear threat at that distance)
- Walker v. City of Orem, 451 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir.) (denial of qualified immunity where facts could show the suspect did not pose an immediate threat and was not holding a gun)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (Sup. Ct.) (qualified immunity protects reasonable but mistaken judgments; right must be clearly established)