61 F.4th 1248
10th Cir.2023Background
- Early-morning reports of men threatening motel guests with a gun prompted a priority-one police response near the Utah Village Motel; officers encountered Elsa Palacios’s decedent, Bernardo Palacios Carbajal, outside Room 15 minutes after a call.
- Officers Iversen and Kilgore shone flashlights and twice commanded "Show us your hands!"; Palacios fled and a foot pursuit followed across alleys and a street.
- Multiple officers repeatedly ordered Palacios to “drop it” after radio reports he had a gun; he fell and picked up an object three times, and officers Iversen and Fortuna (≈15–20 feet away) perceived a handgun in his hand.
- Iversen and Fortuna fired continuously for roughly 8–10 seconds (together over 30 rounds); Palacios fell and landed on his right side, rolled and moved his hands toward his waistband, and later a gun was observed on his left hip.
- Plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force; the district court granted summary judgment based on qualified immunity, finding no constitutional violation and dismissing the Monell claim against Salt Lake City.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed bodycam and surveillance video, adopted inferences consistent with objective evidence, and affirmed—finding officers’ use of deadly force reasonable under the totality of circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether initial use of deadly force violated the Fourth Amendment | Palacios argues the initial shooting was unreasonable because he may have been unaware (no verbal ID, intoxicated), did not fully match the suspect description, and was avoiding confrontation rather than evading arrest | Officers argue Palacios matched part of the description, ignored repeated commands, had a gun in hand, and posed an immediate threat while running and moving toward cover | Court: Initial use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under Graham and the totality of circumstances; no constitutional violation |
| Whether continuing to fire after Palacios fell was excessive (changed circumstances) | Palacios contends that after falling and not pointing the gun he was effectively subdued and officers had time to cease fire | Officers contend Palacios was not immobile, picked up the gun repeatedly, moved his hands toward his waist as he rolled, and a reasonable officer could fear he was preparing to shoot | Court: No material change made threat past; continued firing reasonable given suspect’s movement and possession of the gun |
| Whether factual disputes (inferences about pointing/surrender) preclude summary judgment | Plaintiff says video is ambiguous and reasonable jurors could infer surrender or nonthreatening conduct | Defendants rely on video and officers’ perspectives to show the objective facts supported a reasonable belief of danger; mistaken but reasonable beliefs still immunize | Court: Video controls where it contradicts plaintiff’s version; remaining disputes are not material to the qualified immunity/legal reasonableness question |
| Municipal liability (Monell) | City liable if constitutional violation by officers shown | City argues no constitutional violation, so Monell claim fails | Court: Because no constitutional violation, Monell claim properly dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (video evidence can displace a plaintiff's version of events for summary judgment).
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (use-of-force reasonableness test).
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force to seize suspect is a Fourth Amendment seizure subject to reasonableness).
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified-immunity framework can be considered in either order).
- Est. of Taylor v. Salt Lake City, 16 F.4th 744 (10th Cir. 2021) (officer’s split-second judgments and mistaken-but-reasonable beliefs).
- Est. of Valverde by & through Padilla v. Dodge, 967 F.3d 1049 (10th Cir. 2020) (totality-of-circumstances and danger from a weapon).
- Larsen v. Murr, 511 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir. 2008) (four-factor test for immediacy of threat: orders, hostile motions, distance, manifest intent).
- Thomas v. Durastanti, 607 F.3d 655 (10th Cir. 2010) (an officer’s reasonable but mistaken belief can support qualified immunity).
- Reavis Est. of Coale v. Frost, 967 F.3d 978 (10th Cir. 2020) (deadly-force seizure analyzed under the Fourth Amendment).