Reavis v. Frost, 967 F.3d 978

Deputies Frost and Scribner responded to a reported stabbing and sought a described pickup; Frost encountered a dark Chevy driven by James Coale (not the suspect).
Frost stopped his cruiser across the road, exited and stood between vehicles with his gun "ready," ordered Coale to show hands, and pointed his gun when no hands were shown.
Coale accelerated, drove past Frost within inches; Frost fired 5–7 shots as the truck passed; ballistics/diagram and testimony indicate bullets entered the rear/side and Coale died from a shot to the back of the head.
Neither deputy rendered immediate aid; Scribner later determined Coale was not the stabbing suspect. Coale’s estate sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force) and state wrongful-death law; district court denied Frost qualified immunity on the § 1983 claim.
Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo whether (1) Frost’s use of deadly force violated the Fourth Amendment and (2) the law was clearly established such that qualified immunity did not apply.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Excessive force (Fourth Amendment)	Coale’s threat had abated when Frost fired; shooting a fleeing vehicle that no longer posed an immediate threat was unreasonable	Frost reasonably feared imminent death or serious harm from the truck and fired to stop an immediate threat	On facts a jury could find, Frost’s use of deadly force was objectively unreasonable; denial of summary judgment on the constitutional-violation claim affirmed
Clearly established law (Qualified immunity)	Garner and Tenth Circuit precedent (e.g., Cordova) clearly prohibit deadly force once an officer reasonably perceives the threat has passed	Precedent did not "squarely govern" these facts; reasonable officers could differ in a fast-moving, close call	Court held the unlawfulness was clearly established: officers were on notice deadly force is unreasonable once a threat has abated; qualified immunity denied

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1985) (deadly force not justified when suspect poses no immediate threat to officer or others)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (objective-reasonableness, totality-of-the-circumstances test for force)
Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (U.S. 2015) (clearly established law must "squarely govern" facts; avoid high-level generalities)
Cordova v. Aragon, 569 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2009) (deadly force to stop fleeing vehicle unreasonable where threat was disputed or had abated)
Fancher v. Barrientos, 723 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 2013) (officer may lack probable cause to shoot after threat has passed; timing of shots matters)
Estate of Smart v. City of Wichita, 951 F.3d 1161 (10th Cir. 2020) (jury could find final shots fired after threat had passed; no qualified immunity)
Thomas v. Durastanti, 607 F.3d 655 (10th Cir. 2010) (reasonableness may justify shots when officer reasonably perceives ongoing threat despite rapid events)
Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (U.S. 2014) (context matters; not clearly established when prior precedent does not squarely govern)
Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2004) (qualified immunity affirmed where precedent did not squarely govern use-of-force facts)
Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (U.S. 2018) (insistence on a close fit between precedent and facts for clearly established rule)