885 F.3d 1118
8th Cir.2018Background
- On July 5, 2014, Marilyn Ambrose-Boyd sent text messages indicating suicidal ideation and referencing a firearm; a 911 call reported she was home alone, suicidal, and armed.
- Officers entered her home after forcing a door; Ambrose-Boyd appeared in a second-floor hallway holding a handgun and exhibiting a "thousand-yard stare."
- Officers repeatedly ordered her to drop the gun; she did not comply and moved the gun, at one point raising it toward Officer Christoph's shin area.
- Officer Aaron King fired three rounds, killing Ambrose-Boyd. Plaintiffs are her son (Rogers) and husband (Boyd).
- Plaintiffs sued King under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force (Fourth Amendment) and alleged state torts; they also sued Chief Mikulec and the City of Ankeny for failure to train/supervise and under respondeat superior.
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants; the Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding King's use of deadly force was objectively reasonable and no municipal/supervisory liability attached.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether King's use of deadly force violated the Fourth Amendment | Rogers/Boyd: Shooting was excessive because Ambrose-Boyd never threatened officers and may have been pointing at herself; factual disputes exist about where the gun was pointed | King: A reasonable officer could perceive an immediate threat given an armed, noncompliant, possibly suicidal person who moved the gun toward an officer | Held: No constitutional violation; use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances |
| Whether King was entitled to qualified immunity | Rogers/Boyd: Right to be free from excessive force was clearly established; factual disputes preclude immunity | King: Even viewing facts favorably to plaintiffs, a reasonable officer would have probable cause to believe serious harm was threatened | Held: King entitled to qualified immunity because no violation of clearly established law was shown |
| Whether failure to warn before shooting rendered force unreasonable | Rogers/Boyd: Officers should have warned she would be shot if she did not drop the gun | King: Repeated orders to drop the weapon with firearms drawn provided adequate notice; a specific explicit warning was not feasible/required | Held: Lack of a more specific warning did not make the shooting unreasonable |
| Whether Chief Mikulec/City are liable for training or respondeat superior | Rogers/Boyd: Municipality/supervisor failed to train and is vicariously liable for King's conduct | City/Mikulec: Municipal liability requires a constitutional violation by the officer and/or deliberate indifference; respondeat superior not a basis for § 1983 liability | Held: No municipal or supervisory § 1983 liability (no officer constitutional violation; respondeat superior not a valid theory under Monell) |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective-reasonableness Fourth Amendment standard)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (municipal failure-to-train standard)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability under § 1983)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (limits on supervisory liability and pleading of municipal claims)
- Loch v. City of Litchfield, 689 F.3d 961 (Eighth Circuit on deadly-force reasonableness analysis)
- Partlow v. Stadler, 774 F.3d 497 (factors for excessive-force inquiry)
- Aipperspach v. McInerney, 766 F.3d 803 (no constitutional bar to using deadly force when faced with apparently loaded weapon)
- Sinclair v. City of Des Moines, 268 F.3d 594 (deadly force where suspect armed)
- Dooley v. Tharp, 856 F.3d 1177 (summary judgment review in qualified immunity context)
- Hayek v. City of St. Paul, 488 F.3d 1049 (municipal liability requires an underlying constitutional violation)
- S.M. v. Krigbaum, 808 F.3d 335 (supervisory liability elements)