289 F. Supp. 3d 1182
W.D. Wash.2018Background
- On May 23–24, 2013, after a domestic dispute at the Thomas home in Fife, WA, Pierce County SWAT (Lakewood officers included) engaged in a multi-hour standoff with Leonard Thomas, who was unarmed and inside his house with his 4‑year‑old son E.T.; negotiations occurred by phone and from the porch.
- SWAT ordered an explosive breaching charge on the rear door while Thomas was on the front porch with E.T.; the charge detonated, Thomas grabbed his son and retreated into the house, and sniper Brian Markert shot and fatally wounded Thomas while he held E.T.
- Officers physically removed E.T. from Leonard as he was dying, killed the family dog (Baxter), and arrested Leonard’s father Fred after he climbed a backyard fence; Fred was held overnight and later released without charge.
- Plaintiffs (the Estate, E.T., Fred, and Annalesa) sued for multiple constitutional and state-law claims (excessive force, unreasonable seizure/search, Fourteenth Amendment familial‑deprivation, false arrest, outrage, negligent investigation). A jury returned verdicts for Plaintiffs and awarded roughly $8.635 million in compensatory damages and $6.5 million in punitive damages against individual officers.
- Defendants moved post‑trial for JMOL (Rule 50), remittitur, qualified immunity, and a new trial; the district court denied all motions, addressing legal sufficiency, damages, clearly established law, waiver of immunity, and trial‑process objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers unreasonably seized E.T. and Estate's Fourteenth claim for child's seizure | E.T. (Fourth) and Estate (Fourteenth) alleged officers seized E.T. without warrant/consent and without imminent danger justification | Defendants argued E.T. couldn't bring Fourteenth claim and Estate couldn't bring Fourth; also claimed actions were hostage‑rescue or reasonable | Court upheld jury: claims properly pleaded; jury could find no imminent danger and seizure was unreasonable; liability supported against Zaro, Wiley, Markert, Lakewood |
| Excessive force against Leonard (sniper shot) | Estate: sniper shot an unarmed, non‑threatening man holding his child; breach and orders foreseeably caused lethal result | Defs: use of force was reasonable given prior facts; Mendez prohibits re‑characterizing reasonable force as excessive because of earlier unconstitutional conduct (provocation rule) | Court distinguish Mendez; jury found force unreasonable at each stage (orders, breach, shooting); liability sustained against Markert, Wiley, Zaro, Lakewood |
| Fourth Amendment: explosive breach and unreasonable search/seizure of house | Plaintiffs: use of explosive breach during ongoing negotiations was destructive and unnecessary | Defs: breach was lawful/justified; damages duplicative of other awards | Court: jury reasonably found execution of warrant unreasonably destructive (Boyd guidance); damages for breach upheld as distinct from shooting damages |
| Qualified immunity for individual officers | Plaintiffs: jury verdict established constitutional violations; clearly established law pre‑2013 prohibited killing non‑threatening suspects and unreasonable flash‑bang use | Defs: immunity preserved/raised late; they reasonably believed conduct lawful given facts and exigencies | Court denied immunity: (1) Markert, Wiley, Cannon not found to have waived; Zaro waived immunity by failing to present in Rule 50(a); (2) jury factual findings control post‑verdict analysis; (3) settled precedent (Garner, Harris, Boyd, Zion, etc.) made violations clearly established |
| Damages / Remittitur | Plaintiffs: awards reflect emotional loss, deprivation, and distinct harms (home, outrage, negligent investigation) | Defs: awards excessive, duplicative, inflamed by bias/race, juror prejudice; punitive damages disproportionate to officers’ means | Court denied remittitur: jury awards supported by evidence; punitive damages reasonable under Hammond/State Farm guideposts and comparable case law; defendants had opportunity to present net‑worth evidence but did not |
| Motion for new trial (trial errors alleged) | Plaintiffs responded that evidentiary rulings and trial management were proper | Defs: claimed multiple errors (excluded weapons & 3D animation, race‑based argument, exclusion of Josh Powell incident, comments on counsel, jury answer about Cannon, cumulative) | Court denied new trial: evidentiary rulings not an abuse, exclusions largely proper under Rules 401/403, no prejudicial cumulative error, jury answer on undisputed fact permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force to seize a fleeing suspect is unconstitutional unless officer has probable cause to believe suspect poses serious threat)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) (guideposts for assessing due‑process limits on punitive damages)
- Boyd v. Benton Cty., 374 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 2004) (use of flash‑bang/flash device may be constitutionally excessive unless strong government interest and precautions taken)
- Zion v. County of Orange, 874 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2017) (deadly force against non‑threatening suspect violates clearly established Fourth Amendment law)
- Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 1997) (FBI sniper liability where deadly force used against persons not making threatening movements)
- San Jose Charter of Hells Angels Motorcycle Club v. City of San Jose, 402 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2005) (killing household dog is a Fourth Amendment seizure; unreasonable unless necessary to officer duties)
- A.D. v. California Highway Patrol, 712 F.3d 446 (9th Cir. 2013) (post‑verdict qualified immunity analysis must defer to jury’s factual findings)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (court must draw all reasonable inferences for nonmoving party on JMOL)
- Rutledge v. Elec. Hose & Rubber Co., 511 F.2d 668 (9th Cir. 1975) (directed verdict standard: no substantial evidence supports claim)