898 F.3d 830
8th Cir.2018Background
- At ~12/25/2013, Officer Bob Anderson found Zachary Church in a parked car with engine running and smelled alcohol and burnt marijuana. Anderson frisked Church, found no weapon, and began escorting him toward the patrol car to take him to the station for sobriety testing.
- Anderson testified Church inexplicably hit him with a roundhouse punch, knocking him to his knees, continued punching, and at one point Anderson felt a tug on his duty belt near his service weapon.
- Fearing for his life and after warning Church, Anderson fired once (hitting Church in the lower left abdomen), then two additional shots (one front left shoulder, one back right shoulder area) as Church moved toward him; Church survived and has no memory of the event.
- Anderson’s cruiser AV system did not record the encounter (events occurred outside camera range and audio was not activated); Anderson’s testimony is the only direct account at the civil summary-judgment stage.
- Church was criminally charged and convicted of the lesser-included offense of assault on a peace officer; the district court granted Anderson summary judgment on § 1983 and state-law claims, concluding qualified immunity applied because Anderson’s use of deadly force was objectively reasonable.
- On appeal, Church principally argued for an evidentiary presumption adverse to officers who fail to activate issued body/camera recording equipment and alternatively pointed to perceived inconsistencies and physical evidence to defeat summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an adverse evidentiary presumption should be created when an officer fails to activate issued recording equipment | Church: court should infer misuse/excessive force from lack of audio/video | Anderson: no such presumption; burden remains on plaintiff to show constitutional violation | No presumption; court declines to adopt such rule and follows circuit precedent placing burden on plaintiff |
| Whether Anderson’s use of deadly force violated the Fourth Amendment | Church: physical evidence, lack of defensive injuries, shots including one to the back, and acquittal on greater charge create genuine dispute | Anderson: he was assaulted, feared for life, was larger defendant, could not access less-lethal tools, warnings given — force objectively reasonable | Use of deadly force was objectively reasonable; qualified immunity applies |
| Whether Anderson was required to exhaust less-lethal alternatives or give repeated warnings before each shot | Church: officer should have used taser/pepper spray or renewed warning | Anderson: alternatives were inaccessible during assault; officers need not act with 20/20 hindsight; warnings not required before each shot if threat persists | Officer not required to pursue less-lethal means or renew warnings when threat ongoing |
| Whether state-law claims survive if federal claim fails | Church: state claims for negligence and assault/battery asserted | Anderson: state claims fall with federal claim because force was reasonable under law | State-law claims fail because officer’s actions were objectively reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Burton v. St. Louis Bd. of Police Comm’rs, 731 F.3d 784 (8th Cir.) (qualified immunity review standard)
- Gilmore v. City of Minneapolis, 837 F.3d 827 (8th Cir.) (plaintiff’s burden to show violation and that right was clearly established)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective-reasonableness test and factors for excessive-force claims)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (2015) (clearly established standard for use-of-force cases)
- Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012 (2014) (officer may continue use of force while threat persists; no requirement to cease immediately when suspect wounded)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (summary-judgment standard where record cannot lead reasonable jury for plaintiff)
- Ludwig v. Anderson, 54 F.3d 465 (8th Cir.) (acknowledging evidentiary problems in one-sided force cases)
- Ellison v. Lesher, 796 F.3d 910 (8th Cir.) (evidence sufficiency to avoid summary judgment in force claims)
- Aipperspach v. McInerney, 766 F.3d 803 (8th Cir.) (deadly force reasonable to defend against serious threat)
- Retz v. Seaton, 741 F.3d 913 (8th Cir.) (no requirement to choose most prudent course in hindsight)
- Wertish v. Krueger, 433 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir.) (unrefuted officer testimony can establish reasonableness at summary judgment)