959 F.3d 1127
8th Cir.2020Background
- On Oct. 25, 2016, Officer Dennis Hutchins shot and killed Roy Lee Richards, Jr. after responding to a disturbance at Richards’s uncle Darrell Underwood’s home where Richards had earlier displayed a long gun.
- Officers were warned Richards was armed; they parked a short distance away and approached on foot.
- Richards retrieved what witnesses believed was a rifle (actually a pellet gun), held it vertically (toward the sky or ground) and did not point it at Underwood.
- After Underwood went inside and shut the door, Richards descended the porch steps and turned away toward his vehicle. About five seconds later Hutchins fired five times without warning, killing Richards.
- Richards’s estate sued Hutchins under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force. The district court denied Hutchins qualified immunity, and Hutchins appealed. The Eighth Circuit considered the purely legal question assuming the district court’s version of facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hutchins’s use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment | Richards posed no immediate threat when shot: gun not pointed at Underwood and Richards was retreating | Even accepting the facts, Hutchins’s actions were reasonable given an armed suspect | Court: Viewing facts in plaintiff’s favor, deadly force was objectively unreasonable; no probable cause to believe an immediate threat existed and threat had passed |
| Whether the right was clearly established at the time | Precedent made clear an officer may not use deadly force absent an immediate threat and that a few seconds can suffice for the threat to have passed | The legal rule was too general; prior cases do not clearly govern these facts | Court: The law was clearly established—cases would put a reasonable officer on notice that shooting an unthreatening, retreating person was unlawful |
| Whether this interlocutory appeal is reviewable despite factual disputes | Appeal is fact-driven and thus not jurisdictionally proper | Court may decide the purely legal question assuming district court facts | Court: Denied dismissal; jurisdiction exists to decide the legal question accepting plaintiff’s facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1985) (deadly force unreasonable absent probable cause to believe suspect poses immediate threat of death or serious harm)
- Nance v. Sammis, 586 F.3d 604 (8th Cir. 2009) (possession of a gun alone does not make a person an immediate threat absent ready-to-shoot or menacing conduct)
- Ludwig v. Anderson, 54 F.3d 465 (8th Cir. 1995) (seconds after a threat passes can suffice to render subsequent deadly force unreasonable)
- Partridge v. City of Benton, 929 F.3d 562 (8th Cir. 2019) (mere possession of a firearm is insufficient; menacing action or pointing needed to establish immediate threat)
- Roberts v. City of Omaha, 723 F.3d 966 (8th Cir. 2013) (continuing to fire after a suspect is subdued can render otherwise reasonable force excessive)
- Ngo v. Storlie, 495 F.3d 597 (8th Cir. 2007) (failure to give a feasible warning exacerbates unreasonableness of deadly force)
- Craighead v. Lee, 399 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2005) (gun pointed upward not equivalent to aiming at another; context matters in reasonableness analysis)
- Cooper v. Sheehan, 735 F.3d 153 (4th Cir. 2013) (officers may not shoot solely because a person carries a weapon; need reasonable assessment that weapon threatens others)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (U.S. 2017) (qualified-immunity clearly-established inquiry requires precedent to put the question beyond debate)
- Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (U.S. 2018) (need for precedent with sufficiently similar facts to show an officer had notice his conduct was unlawful)