441 F. App'x 294
6th Cir.2010Background
- Zulock involved in a hit-skip car accident; police officer Shures investigated using the license plate to identify Zulock and find his address at 608 Young Street.
- Shures knocked on Zulock’s front door; Zulock’s mother answered, and Shures allegedly entered the home or stood in the doorway to question Zulock about the hit-skip.
- Zulock stood in the kitchen holding a 10-inch bread knife; Shures testified that Zulock brandished or pointed the knife and threatened him.
- Shures drew his weapon, commanded Zulock to drop the knife, and after Zulock complied and turned, Zulock grabbed the knife again and moved toward the back of the house; Shures fired three shots, hitting Zulock.
- Zulock was arrested for felony assault on a police officer; Zulock later faced a criminal trial where he was acquitted; Zulock then sued Shures, Hensley, and the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Ohio law.
- The district court granted summary judgment to some defendants but denied Shures’s summary judgment on excessive force and illegal arrest, leading to this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shures’s deadly force violated Zulock’s Fourth Amendment rights | Zulock argues Shures used excessive force when Zulock posed little threat | Shures contends exigent circumstances and reasonable fear justified force | Yes; Shures’s use of deadly force violated Zulock’s Fourth Amendment rights |
| Whether the violation involved a clearly established right | Zulock asserts the right against unreasonable force was clearly established | Shures argues the right was not clearly established under the facts presented | Yes; the right was clearly established given the circumstances |
| Whether Shures had probable cause to arrest Zulock for felony assault (and collateral estoppel effect) | Zulock contends lack of probable cause and that the prior probable-cause finding was not binding | Shures contends probable cause existed for felony assault or, at least, Shures is protected by immunity | Shures lacked probable cause for felony assault; collateral estoppel did not foreclose this challenge; qualified immunity does not apply to illegal arrest claim |
| Whether Shures had probable cause to arrest Zulock for other offenses (4549.02, 2921.331, 2917.11) | Zulock argues no probable cause for any listed offenses | Shures claims probable cause based on circumstances, but the court finds none | Shures lacked probable cause for all three offenses; not protected by qualified immunity on illegal arrest claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1985) (use of deadly force as seizure must be reasonable)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (analysis of reasonableness of force from on-scene perspective)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (two- or three-step qualified-immunity framework)
- Bouggess v. Mattingly, 482 F.3d 886 (6th Cir. 2007) (reasonableness depends on threat assessment at the moment)
- Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2004) (obvious case exception to clearly established law)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (modifies Saucier sequencing of prongs)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (U.S. 1985) (collateral order doctrine and qualified immunity)