Tenorio v. Pitzer
802 F.3d 1160
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- Officers responded within minutes to a 911 call that Tenorio, intoxicated and having vandalized windows, was waving a knife and had threatened to hurt himself or his wife. 911/dispatcher broadcasts warned he was violent and holding a knife to his throat.
- Four uniformed officers entered the home through an open front door without announcing a tactical plan; Pitzer led with his handgun drawn and announced he was “going lethal.”
- Mrs. Tenorio came into the living room with hands up; Tenorio followed, holding a 3.25-inch santoku knife loosely at his side and walking toward the officers at an average pace.
- Pitzer shouted multiple commands to “put the knife down” (over two to three seconds); when Tenorio was a few steps into the living room (less than striking distance according to the district court’s view), Pitzer shot him and another officer deployed a Taser.
- Tenorio survived but suffered life-threatening injuries; he sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied Pitzer qualified immunity on two theories; the Tenth Circuit affirmed denial as to lack of probable cause to use deadly force and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pitzer had probable cause to use deadly force (excessive force) | Tenorio argues he made no hostile gestures, was holding a small knife at his side, had insufficient time to comply with commands, and was shot before within striking distance | Pitzer argues Tenorio advanced toward officers while armed, did not drop the knife after commands, and a reasonable officer could believe serious harm was imminent | Denied qualified immunity: viewing disputed facts in plaintiff's favor, precedent (Zuchel/Walker) made it clearly established that shooting a suspect holding a small knife who is not charging or making stabbing motions can be excessive force |
| Whether officers recklessly created the situation that led to deadly force | Tenorio contends officers entered without a plan, announced “going lethal,” failed to determine hostages, and thus created the dangerous encounter | Pitzer contends exigent circumstances (frantic 911 caller, prior knife threats, family present) justified entry to separate family and address immediate danger | District court found a jury could find reckless creation of the situation; Tenth Circuit did not decide this theory on appeal because it affirmed on the first theory |
| Whether the constitutional rule was clearly established | Tenorio relies on Zuchel and Walker to show officials were on notice that such a shooting could be unconstitutional | Pitzer argues cases are distinguishable and qualified immunity protects split-second judgments when an officer reasonably perceives imminent danger | Tenth Circuit: existing precedent (Zuchel as construed by Walker) put officers on fair notice; therefore qualified immunity was not warranted on the accepted version of facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Zuchel v. City & County of Denver, 997 F.2d 730 (10th Cir. 1993) (jury could find deadly force unreasonable where suspect allegedly held a knife at his side, made no charging or stabbing motions, and was shot)
- Walker v. City of Orem, 451 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 2006) (construing Zuchel: where suspect held a knife, was not charging or making stabbing motions, deadly force could be unreasonable)
- Estate of Larsen v. Murr, 511 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir. 2008) (sets nonexclusive factors for assessing deadly-force reasonableness: commands/compliance; hostile motions with weapon; distance; manifest intent)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective-reasonableness standard for Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity framework; courts may address either constitutional violation or clearly established law prong first)