Sharon Dooley v. Jon Tharp
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8500
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- On Oct. 16, 2012, Van Buren County Deputy Jon Tharp shot and killed R. Michael Dooley after approaching Dooley, who was walking along a highway carrying what appeared to be a rifle (actually a pellet gun attached to his coat).
- Dispatch reported a man in a military-style uniform flipping off motorists and carrying a rifle; deputies Tharp and Hudson responded together in a marked pickup with lights/siren activated.
- En route the deputies discussed a confrontational approach; plan: Tharp would lean out the passenger window, display a rifle and order the man to “drop the gun.”
- After pulling alongside Dooley, Tharp twice shouted “Drop the gun!”; within about five seconds of the first command he fired one shot that killed Dooley.
- Dash-cam video at normal speed showed Dooley turning and moving the rifle in an arc; slow-motion viewing could be read as compliance (attempting to unbutton the sling). Officers testified they perceived Dooley as raising/aiming a weapon at them.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force) and asserted state tort claims; district court granted summary judgment for Tharp on qualified immunity and on state-law defenses; Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tharp’s use of deadly force violated the Fourth Amendment | Dooley (plaintiffs) argue force was excessive because Dooley had not threatened anyone and his movements could be interpreted as attempting to comply | Tharp contends he reasonably perceived an imminent threat when Dooley turned and moved the rifle toward him | Court: No constitutional violation as a matter of law; force was objectively reasonable based on officer’s real-time perception |
| Whether qualified immunity shields Tharp | Plaintiffs: right to be free from unreasonable deadly force was violated and was clearly established | Tharp: his actions were objectively reasonable; mistake of perception is protected if reasonable | Court: Qualified immunity applies because no clearly established violation given objectively reasonable mistaken perception |
| Whether failure to give warning or de-escalate renders force unreasonable | Plaintiffs: officers had time and alternatives; nonconfrontational or warning might have averted death | Tharp: gave commands and reasonably reacted to perceived imminent threat | Court: Although de-escalation/warning might have been better in hindsight, officer’s split-second perception made use of force reasonable |
| Whether state-law tort claims survive after constitutional ruling | Plaintiffs: state claims allege assault/battery, negligence, loss of consortium | Tharp: justified/self-defense under Iowa law if force was reasonable | Court: State claims dismissed because state self-defense/justification defenses mirror federal reasonableness finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard) (establishes qualified immunity framework)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (excessive-force reasonableness standard) (use of force judged under objective-reasonableness standard)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (deadly force standard) (deadly force permissible if officer has probable cause to believe suspect poses serious threat)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (qualified immunity analysis) (formulates two-step qualified immunity inquiry)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity sequencing) (courts may choose order of qualified immunity prongs)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (video evidence and summary judgment) (video that blatantly contradicts officer’s account can preclude reasonable belief)
- Sinclair v. City of Des Moines, 268 F.3d 594 (8th Cir.) (upholding immunity when officer faced apparent long gun) (no constitutional bar to deadly force against apparently loaded long gun)
- Aipperspach v. McInerney, 766 F.3d 803 (8th Cir.) (video corroborated officer’s perception of threat) (officers’ perception of pointing weapon supported reasonableness)
- Partlow v. Stadler, 774 F.3d 497 (8th Cir.) (upholding immunity where officers perceived suspect aiming shotgun) (perceived aiming supported use of force)
- Malone v. Hinman, 847 F.3d 949 (8th Cir.) (context of crowd and prior shots) (use of deadly force reasonable given perceived immediate danger)