AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Civil Liability of
Law Enforcement Agencies & Personnel
Firearms Related: Intentional Use
Monthly Law Journal Article: Use
of Force and the Hollywood Factor, by Jeffry L. Johnson, 2007 (4) AELE Mo.
L.J. 501.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Civil
Liability for Use of Deadly Force-- Part One, 2007 (11) AELE Mo. L.J.
101.
Monthly Law
Journal Article: Civil
Liability for Use of Deadly Force-- Part Two. Qualified Immunity and Inadequate
Training, 2007 (12) AELE Mo. L.J. 101.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Civil
Liability for Use of Deadly Force-- Part Three. Supervisory Liability and
Negligent/Accidental Acts, 2008 (1) AELE Mo. L.J. 101.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Long
v. Honolulu Police Sharpshooter Decision, 2008 (5) AELE Mo.
L.J. 501.
Police officers acted
reasonably in shooting and injuring an arrestee during his arrest. The
suspect had previously told a detective investigating him for alleged sexual
contact with a 13-year-old girl that he would "not go back" to
jail, that he had a handgun, and that he would "take care of the problem."
Officers arriving at his residence reasonably believed that he was both
armed and suicidal, and he fled the officers in his vehicle. When he exited
the vehicle, officers saw that he had something in his hand, which was
a handgun, and he refused to comply with their orders. Under these circumstances,
they acted reasonably in firing at him. Ramirez v. Knoulton, No. 07-50785,
2008 U.S. App. Lexis 18334 (5th Cir.).
A bank robber who pled guilty to discharging
his gun from his car during a pursuit following a failed robbery, by doing
so, essentially admitted that the officers acted reasonably in firing at
him. He could not, therefore, pursue claims for excessive use of force
under either federal or Louisiana state law. He was not unlawfully seized,
since he also pled guilty to a charge of attempted burglary. Allowing a
federal civil rights claim for either excessive use of force or unlawful
seizure to go forward, under these circumstances, would improperly imply
the invalidity of the plaintiff's convictions should he be awarded damages,
and his underlying convictions had not been set aside. Connors v. Graves,
No. 08-30163, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 16480 (5th Cir.).
A family's assertion that a man was unarmed
and posing no threat to anyone when police officers shot and killed him
during a drug raid on a housing project stated a viable claim for excessive
use of force. The plaintiffs further stated a viable possible claim for
supervisory liability based on their allegations that a drug unit supervisor
directly participated in the raid and that a police department superintendent
and the supervisor both failed to adequately train, discipline, and monitor
the police officers involved in the incident. Rivera v. Sanchez-Ramos,
Civil No. 05-2146, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 60303 (D. P.R.).
Officers who reasonably believed that a suspect
who was inside a house after escaping federal custody was armed and dangerous,
acted reasonably in shooting and killing him when he ignored their commands
and threatened to kill a hostage who was screaming for help. The threat
to the officers and the hostage did not end after one officer fired a non-lethal
shot which injured the suspect, so that a second officer acted reasonably
in firing a lethal shot that killed the suspect shortly thereafter. Pethtel
v. Lemmon, Civil Action No. 5:06CV87, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 58156 (N.D.W.Va.).
There was a genuine
issue of material fact concerning whether an officer's shooting and killing
of a suspect was justified, based on a statement by a witness that she
saw "every bit" of the incident, and that the suspect raised
his hands in the air after being tackled by the officer, and prior to the
shooting. The officer was not, therefore, entitled to summary judgment.
Reed v. Rose, No. 07-3274, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 15090 (Unpub. 6th
Cir.).
Officer who shot a suspect acted reasonably
because he kept his left hand concealed during a standoff, and he told
officers that he "had something" to make the officers do what
he "could not," as well as having previously told a 911 operator
that he could easily provoke an officer to shoot him. The officer who shot
the plaintiff believed that he had made a threatening movement with his
concealed hand. Dague v. Dumesic, No. 07-15317, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis
15511 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
A federal appeals court upheld the conviction of
two Border Patrol agents who shot and injured an unarmed, fleeing drug
smuggler who escaped across the border into Mexico, running on foot from
his stopped van, which contained 743 pounds of marijuana. The agents were
also accused of engaging in a "cover-up," including a clean-up
of the area of spent shells, and a failure by the agents to report the
weapon-firing incident, as required by Border Patrol policies. The charges
made against the agents included unlawfully discharging their weapons and
concealing their offense. The appeals court rejected the agents' argument
that they should have been allowed to introduce evidence of other drug
trafficking conduct which the man they shot allegedly engaged in after
the incident. "The district court entered a pretrial order ruling
that introducing such evidence would be confusing, misleading to the jury,
and highly prejudicial to the conduct of the trial and would therefore
not be allowed. ..." The suspect's guilt of this alleged later crime
could have become an irrelevant "mini-trial" within the trial,
according to the court, diverting the attention of the jury from the details
of the incident at issue. The trial court, therefore, did not engage in
an abuse of discretion in barring that evidence under Fed. R. Evidence
403. The appeals court did reverse and vacate, however, convictions of
the two agents for "obstruction of justice," because a Border
Patrol investigation they allegedly obstructed did not constitute an "official
proceeding" within the meaning of the federal statute they were charged
under. The court therefore ordered resentencing of the agents on the basis
of the other convictions, with the "obstruction of justice" charges
excluded. The agents were previously sentenced to 12 and 11 years
and 1 month in prison respectively. U.S.A. v. Ramos, No. 06-51489, 2008
U.S. App. Lexis 15961 (5th Cir.).
Editor's Note: The prosecution of
these two Border Patrol agents has resulted in much controversy in the
press and on the Internet, as well as from some public officials. See letters
from U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Cal.) to the U.S. Attorney General
and to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, questioning
the sentences given to the two Border Patrol Agents. The office of the
U.S. Attorney, (Western District of Texas) which prosecuted the case, issued
a "fact sheet" reacting to the controversy, and responding to
what it characterized as "myths" that have been circulated in
behalf of the officers. The National Border Patrol Council of the American
Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) (AFL-CIO), which represents Border
Patrol employees, also issued a "rebuttal" to the statement of
the U.S. Attorney's Office "fact sheet."
Based on disputes about the facts of the
incident in which officers shot and killed a man as he tried to flee a
traffic stop, the officers were properly denied qualified immunity. While
the officers claimed that they feared for their safety even under the facts
alleged by the plaintiffs, those allegations were that the motorist's truck
was moving non-aggressively and slowly, and could not have hit the officers,
and also that it was stationary at the time of the shooting. Under those
circumstances, if true, no reasonable officer could have believed that
the motorist posed a threat to them. Further, under these circumstances,
the officers would have had time to assess the situation before firing
several times at the motorist. Officers may not, the court noted, fire
at a fleeing felon who is not posing a threat to anyone. Estate of Kirby
v. Duva, No. 06-1976, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 13573 (6th Cir.).
The fact that the officer who shot and killed
the plaintiffs' son may have made conflicting subjective statements about
her motivation for her actions did not raise a genuine issue of material
fact as to whether she acted in an objectively reasonable manner in shooting
the decedent, for purposes of determining whether she was entitled to qualified
immunity. Given factual disputes about that, the appeals court could not
rule on the issue of qualified immunity. Rocha v. Schroeder, No. 07-50916,
2008 U.S. App. Lexis 13598 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A police officer's shooting and killing of
a man charging at her from 10 to 15 feet away was not excessive, entitling
her to qualified immunity. The officer was responding to a 911 call from
the man's sister stating that he was drunk and physically abusive, and
the suspect vandalized nearby apartments and threatened a resident before
the officer arrived. The officer was not required to use the "least
intrusive amount of force" possible when the suspect was larger than
her and posed an immediate threat to her and to others. Lehman v. Leichliter,
No. 07-30405, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 11268 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
When a trial judge's instructions about the
legal standard for excessive use of force were correct, the judge's error
concerning instructions about the proper use of a police investigator's
report concerning the shooting of a suspect were harmless. The report,
containing statements the shooting officer made to a supervisor after the
shooting, while "hearsay within hearsay" could have properly
been considered as admissions by a party-opponent in the lawsuit. The trial
court had, however, allowed the report to be entered into evidence, and
the statements in the report were mostly useful for purposes of impeachment.
As the plaintiff's attorney used the statements for that purpose, any error
in instructions concerning the use of the report were harmless. Alicea
v. Ralston, No. 06-4521, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 10736 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A police officer acted reasonably in shooting
and killing a suspect armed with a box cutter who brandished it while advancing
upon her despite her commands for him to drop the weapon. Even though the
blade of the box cutter was not then extended, the officer could reasonably
believe that the suspect constituted a serious threat of death or serious
physical injury. The suspect was only two feet away from the officer at
the time, and the officer was back up against her police cruiser. Njang
v. Montgomery County, Maryland, No. 07-1815, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 10394
(Unpub. 4th Cir.).
Since it is well established that a police
officer may not use deadly force against a non-dangerous and unarmed person,
and the other officer present at the scene of the plaintiff's shooting
stated that the plaintiff did not act in any way that would have justified
the shooting, the officer who shot the plaintiff was not entitled to qualified
immunity. The shooting officer did not give any warning before shooting,
and the plaintiff alleged that, at the time of the shooting, he had stopped
advancing towards the officer and did not making threatening movements.
Kiles v. City of North Las Vegas, No. 06-16420, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 9958
(Unpub. 9th Cir.).
New York high court upholds decision providing
that a man paralyzed after being shot by a police officer, initially awarded
$76.4 million by a jury, shall receive nothing, based on his failure to
appear at a second trial in the case, at which a second jury still awarded
him $51 million despite his absence. Details follow:
The highest
court in New York, in a brief one-line order in Barnes v. City of New York,
has upheld an intermediate appeals court decision which results in a man
shot and paralyzed by a police officer twenty years ago, and who was initially
awarded $76.4 million by a jury receiving nothing, and being assessed $100
for court costs. The plaintiff had fired a gun at a police officer who
chased him while he was running with a Tec-9 semiautomatic pistol. The
officer returned fire, resulting in spinal injuries, which paralyzed the
plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that the officer shot him in the back
after he dropped a gun he picked up during a fight with two other men.
He also claimed that he did not see the officer, who was in plain clothes.
A jury awarded him $76.4 million, which was later reduced to $8.9 million
by a trial court before a new trial was ordered by an intermediate New
York appeals court, based on the improper exclusion of evidence at the
trial that the plaintiff was a member of a group that believed in resisting
arrests with violence. A jury at a second trial awarded the plaintiff $51
million, which was subsequently reduced to $10.75 million by the trial
judge. In Barnes v. City of New York, #9969, 2007 NY Slip Op 06260,
44 A.D. 3d 39, 840 N.Y. Supp. 2d 582, 2007 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 8781 (1st
Dept.), an intermediate New York appeals court overturned that second award
of damages, based on the plaintiff's failure to appear at the second trial.
The appeals court stated that:
"By avoiding his obligation to testify
at a trial in which he was seeking millions of dollars, plaintiff was able
to frustrate the City's fundamental common-law right to cross-examine a
witness. Plaintiff, of course, had good reason to avoid coming to court
to testify. His strategy denied the City the opportunity to confront and
test his credibility on such matters as his assertion that he had no familiarity
with guns and that he did not fire at the officer, and to impeach him by
way of his plea of guilty to attempted assault in the first degree (i.e.,
by means of a deadly weapon). That deadly weapon was found at plaintiff's
feet with two empty shell casings, thus corroborating the officer's account
that plaintiff had fired the gun at him."
In a case where a police officer accidentally
shot and killed a suspect, drawing her gun while thinking it was her Taser,
a federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the Taser manufacturer
on a products liability design defect claim. The court noted that the Taser
and holster were not "used" when the injury occurred, and such
use was necessary for the design defect claim. The court also found that
the manufacturer exercised reasonable care in choosing a gun-shaped design
for the Taser, when the only evidence presented on the decision-making
process indicated that a handgun-shape was better for accuracy and feedback
from training officers indicated that they preferred a handgun-shaped design.
The court also rejected failure to warn, negligent warning, and training
claims. Torrest v. City of Madera, No. 05-16468, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 10169
(Unpub. 9th Cir.).
When an officer shot at an allegedly stolen
vehicle, intending to stop it, his intent was to seize both the driver
and a passenger, even though the passenger, who was shot, was not the intended
object of the gunfire. The passenger was therefore "seized" for
purposes of a Fourth Amendment claim. Since a jury could also determine,
under these circumstances, that the officer was not in danger, the officer
was not entitled to qualified immunity based on his argument that his actions
were objectively reasonable. Tubar v. Clift, No. 06-35836, 2008 U.S. App.
Lexis 8346 (9th Cir.).
A motorist moved his vehicle, boxed
between other cars, forward and backwards, so that an officer acted objectively
reasonably in shooting the motorist based on a belief that another officer
under the motorist's car was hurt and would suffer additional serious bodily
harm. No liability for shooting and killing the motorist under these circumstances.
Costello v. Town of Warwick, No. 06-5138, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 8378 (2nd
Cir.).
Officer who intended to use a Taser holstered
near her gun against a suspect, but instead drew and fired her gun, killing
the suspect was not entitled to summary judgment. At the time, the suspect
was seized for purposes of the Fourth Amendment and was handcuffed and
in the back of a patrol car. Torres v. City of Madera, No. 05-16762,
2008 U.S. App. Lexis 9648 (9th Cir.).
A federal jury in Pennsylvania awarded $4
million in compensatory and $24 million in punitive damages to the father
of a 12-year-old boy on a claim for excessive use of force. The unarmed
youth was stopped while driving a stolen car, and was fatally shot in the
back while running from the two defendant state troopers. The award consisted
of $4 million for pain and suffering, $4,058 for burial expenses and $12
million in punitive damages against each of the two state troopers. Hickenbottom
v. Nassan, #2:03-cv-00223 (W.D. Pa., March 12, 2008).
Officers were entitled to qualified immunity
for shooting and killing a man at the conclusion of a high speed pursuit
when he pointed a silver cell phone at them, in a manner as though he were
aiming a gun. At the time of the shooting, he was also running towards
the officers. The officers could reasonably believe that the suspect was
armed and resisting arrest. The fact that he was actually not armed with
a gun was not relevant, particularly since the entire incident at the conclusion
of the pursuit only took seven seconds. The incident was captured on videotape.
Hudspeth v. City of Shreveport, No. 07-30260, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 5829
(5th Cir.).
Regardless of whether a suspect was running
away from a deputy or not at the time he was shot and killed, the deputy
could reasonably believe that the use of deadly force was justified against
him, since he was in possession of a semiautomatic handgun. Under the circumstances,
there was an objectively reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm
being suffered by the deputy. Garcia v. Santa Clara County, No. 06-15745,
2008 U.S. App. Lexis 4905 (9th Cir.).
Police officers had probable cause to believe
that a man posed a threat of serious physical harm to them when he twice
pointed a shotgun at them after they chased him following his shooting
of two people. They were therefore entitled to qualified immunity for shooting
and killing him. The court also rejected the plaintiff's claim that additional
discovery should be permitted to determine if any of the police vehicles
present at the scene of the incident had video cameras, since prior discovery
had already indicated that this was not the case. Ingle v. Yelton, No.
07-1315, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 3184 (4th Cir.).
Police officers who allegedly fired on an
unarmed man in the backyard of his own home, resulting in him being wounded
in the chest, were not entitled to Neither
mother nor father of decedent who was shot and killed by police had standing
to pursue federal civil rights or state law wrongful death claims arising
out of the death when no one had been appointed as the representative of
the decedent's estate. The lawsuit was therefore dismissed. Farrow v. Sammis,
No. 3:07CV00097, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 90429 (E.D. Ark.).summary judgment.
The shooting was allegedly carried out without cause and without warning.
The court rejects one officer's claim that the fact that he missed the
plaintiff when he fired entitled him to qualified immunity, and an argument
by a second officer that he acted on the reasonable, but mistaken belief
that the man had shot the other defendant officer. Floyd v. City of Detroit,
No. 06-2441, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 4804 (6th Cir.).
Police officer acted reasonably in shooting
a man driving a stolen car who refused to obey orders to pull over, but
instead drove away at high speed, and who subsequently drove recklessly,
collided with another motorist's car, causing an accident that resulted
in the hospitalization of the other driver. The fact that the fleeing motorist
was not "armed" did not mean it was not objectively reasonable
for the officer to use deadly force, as his driving posed a risk of death
or serious bodily harm to others. Hill v. Nigro, No. 07-3871, 2008 U.S.
App. Lexis 4407 (3rd Cir.).
Mere threat to shoot suspect, even if it
was "unprofessional," did not constitute a violation of the suspect's
constitutional rights. Williams v. Milwaukee Police Department, No. 06-C-1124,
2007 U.S. Dist. Lex 55122 (E.D. Wis.). In a subsequent decision on other
issues in the same case, the court held that a partner of an officer accused
of misconduct in the case was properly dismissed from lawsuit, since no
allegation was made that he was personally involved in the misconduct.
. Federal civil rights law does not support the imposition of vicarious
or collective liability for alleged misconduct. Williams v. Miscichoski,
No. 06-C-1124, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 94831 (E.D. Wis.).
An arrest and the shooting of the arrestee
occurred in 1998, so that any lawsuit filed over the incident was time-barred
by Michigan's three-year statute of limitations, and was properly dismissed
when it was not filled until 2002. No "tolling" (extension) of
the time period was justified, since the arrestee stated that he was conscious
"before, during, and after" the time he was shot, and that he
took the position, at the time of the incident, that he had been deliberately
shot by the officer without provocation, allegedly in order to "cover
up" the shooting officer's accidental shooting of a fellow officer
during the arrest. Drake v. City of Detroit, No. 06-1817, 2008 U.S. App.
Lexis 4224 (6th Cir.).
Neither mother nor father of decedent who
was shot and killed by police had standing to pursue federal civil rights
or state law wrongful death claims arising out of the death when no one
had been appointed as the representative of the decedent's estate. The
lawsuit was therefore dismissed. Farrow v. Sammis, No. 3:07CV00097, 2007
U.S. Dist. Lexis 90429 (E.D. Ark.).
A man shot by a police officer claimed that
the incident occurred after he and others had been shot at by someone in
a passing car and another man shot back at that car. The officer was traveling
towards the scene of the incident and heard the gunshots. The officer then
shot the plaintiff as he and another individual, who was armed, ran away.
Overturning summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity for the
officer, a federal appeals court ruled that there were disputed factual
issues of whether the officer acted to seize the plaintiff, the armed person,
or both of them, and whether the bullet that struck the plaintiff had been
fired by the officer. If the officer used deadly force to seize the plaintiff,
who was unarmed and running away, a jury could have found this to be unreasonable.
Moore v. Indehar, No. 06-4047, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 2243 (8th Cir.).
Officer who shot and killed a man outside
his home was entitled to qualified immunity when the decedent had threatened
to commit violent acts against himself and other persons, he was armed
with a knife, he refused to comply with repeated orders to drop the knife,
and he allegedly raised the knife blade above his shoulder and pointed
it towards officers, turning and stepping towards an officer. Larsen v.
Murr, No. 06-1094, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 25 (10th Cir.).
A homeowner who claimed that state police,
acted improperly, surrounded his house while his wife and dogs were inside,
and repeatedly shot into the home could not pursue federal civil rights
claims against the State of Maine or the state police because of their
Eleventh Amendment immunity. Palm v. State of Maine, Civil No. 07-102,
2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4975 (D. Maine).
In a case where police officers shot and
killed a motorist during what was characterized as a "routine"
traffic stop, a federal appeals court found that the city's written policy
concerning the use of deadly force complied with Fourth Amendment requirements
and required officers to reasonably believe that there was an imminent
threat of death or serious bodily injury before shooting. There were, however,
genuine issues of material fact as to whether there was an alleged "longstanding"
practice or custom of use of deadly force in circumstances where it was
not warranted, sufficient to support a claim for municipal liability. The
court rejected, however, any claim based on inadequate training. Price
v. Sery, No. 06-35159, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 1196 (9th Cir.).
A federal appeals court held that a police
SWAT team sniper acted in an objectively reasonable manner in shooting
and killing an armed suspect, and that neither the officer nor the city
was liable for the death. The officer, according to the court, heard the
suspect threaten to shoot police, saw him carrying a rifle, and had knowledge
that he had previously shot at a car full of people, wounding two of them.
Additionally, fellow officers had radioed that the suspect was shooting
at them and yelling threats. Under these circumstances, the officer reasonably
believed that the suspect posed an immediate danger, justifying the use
of deadly force. The court further ruled that a decision that was made
to wait for a light armored vehicle for safety reasons before entering
the property where the suspect was did not constitute deliberate indifference,
even accepting the argument that the delay may have contributed to the
decedent's death. Long v. City and County of Honolulu, No. 05-16567, 2007
U.S. App. Lexis 29530 (9th Cir. 2007).
Officer did not use excessive force in shooting
a motorist who fled on foot after a vehicle pursuit, and was running in
a residential area holding a screwdriver in the direction of some of the
officers a few feet away. Under these circumstances, the use of deadly
force was objectively reasonable. Nicarry v. Cannaday, No. 07-11679, 2007 U.S.
App. Lexis 29707 (11th Cir.).
Deputy did not act unreasonably in shooting
and killing a man who had refused to submit to a pat down and then disarmed
the deputy of his baton. At the time he was shot, the suspect was holding
the baton while the deputy lay prone. A federal appeals court upheld a
jury's verdict in favor of the deputy. Lewis v. County of Riverside, No.
06-55764, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 29148 (9th Cir.).
A disputed issue of fact as to whether a
suspect was unarmed and surrendering to officers with his hands up or appeared
to be concealing a weapon when he was shot and killed by a detective barred
summary judgment in an excessive force lawsuit. White v. Gerardot, No.
07-1418, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 28009 (7th Cir.).
Police officer was entitled to qualified
immunity in lawsuit over his shooting and killing of a motorist he had
stopped because the car matched the description of a stolen vehicle. The
motorist refused to comply with orders to keep his hands up, and drove
off, which dragged the officer along since his hands were inside the car.
Under these circumstances, the force used was objectively reasonable. Owens
v. City of Austin, No. 06-50763, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 28646 (5th Cir.).
Alabama deputy sheriff acted reasonably in
shooting and killing a mentally unstable man who took possession of a marked
sheriff's cruiser when he was informed that he was going to be arrested,
and began backing away. The deputy who shot him warned that he would be
shot if he did not stop his escape. The decedent could have used to car
to injure or kill someone, especially since it cloaked him with the "apparent
authority' of a police officer. Long v. Slaton, No. 06-14439, 2007 U.S.
App. Lexis 26573 (11th Cir.).
Three police officers who allegedly fired
at a suspect while he was on the ground, already shot, were entitled to
qualified immunity from liability. The facts showed that the first officer
who shot the suspect before he fell to the ground was faced with a much
larger man charging her with a dangerous weapon in his hand, and that the
suspect refused to stop moving or show his hands, as he was ordered to
do by the other officers after he fell. Under the circumstances, the officers
did not act unreasonably. Berube v. Conley, No. 06-2644, 2007 U.S. App.
Lexis 25418 (1st Cir.).
In a prior lawsuit concerning the fatal shooting
of a suspect by police, the shooting was found to be legally justified.
The decedent's mother and estate then sued another officer, seeking to
hold him liable for the death on the basis that he was the highest ranking
officer present. The result in the prior lawsuit barred this claim. Easley
v. Reuss, No. 06-1646, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 22352 (7th Cir.).
Deputies did not act unreasonably in shooting
and killing a mentally disturbed man who posed a threat of serious physical
harm. The man had placed a large sign in his front yard that said, "no
police you be shot." The suspect came out of his mobile home holding
something the officers believed to be a handgun and took a kneeling stance
that was believed to be a shooting position, pointing it in the direction
of an officer. The suspect responded to commands to drop the object by
yelling, "Shoot me, Shoot me." The suspect was subsequently shot
and killed as he was charging towards the officers. Summerland v. County
of Livingston, No. 06-1975, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 21045 (6th Cir.).
A police officer acted reasonably within
an extremely brief period of time in shooting and killing a teenage motorist
whose car struck him as it drove away following a traffic stop. The officer
stated that he had seen the car accelerate towards him and a "determined
look" on the face of the motorist, and decided to fire upon realizing
that he could not get out of the way. The officer himself testified during
his deposition, that he did not know if he fired before, during, or after
he was hit by the vehicle. The court found that it was reasonable to conclude
that the shooting and the vehicle striking the officer happened at close
to the same time. The trial court excluded offered expert witness testimony
by the father of the motorist, who is a police officer, arguing that the
defendant officer must have been behind the car at the time of the shooting.
Hathaway v. Bazany, No. 06-50602, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 25561 (5th Cir.).
Police officers who shot and killed an allegedly
suicidal suspect who approached them with a Samurai sword were not entitled
to qualified immunity on the claim that they acted unreasonably in using
force against him. It was argued that the officers escalated, rather than
de-escalated the situation, having gone to check on his well-being, by
entering his home, confronting him at the doorway to his bedroom, and using
pepper spray against him, creating a situation in which deadly force was
required. It was further argued that there was evidence from which it could
be concluded that the decedent was trying to defend himself from the officers,
who he viewed as aggressors against him. The court found that prior caselaw
provided the officers with notice that it was unreasonable to aggressively
confront an armed suicidal person in a threatening manner. Hastings v.
Barnes, No. 04-5144, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 24446 (10th Cir.).
Police officer was entitled to qualified
immunity in shooting a suspect during a drug raid when he feared that the
suspect would take his gun as he tried to force the suspect to the ground.
A federal appeals court found that an objectively reasonable officer, under
the circumstances, could have believed that the suspect posed a threat,
and that if he paused even for an instant he might lose his last chance
to defend himself. Alford v. Cumberland County, No. 06-1569, 2007 U.S.
App. Lexis 24138 (4th Cir.).
When police officers reasonably believed
that they were facing a potentially violent hostage situation in which
an individual was in danger, they had no obligation under the Americans
with Disabilities Act to provide a reasonable accommodation for an allegedly
disabled mentally ill suspect. In a previous decision, officers were
held not liable for shooting and killing the suspect, who had threatened
the life of an officer, and who they perceived was holding a knife and
a large metal pipe with a hook at the end, and kept advancing towards them
despite orders to stop and drop his weapons. Because the officers, under
these exigent circumstances, had no duty to reasonably accommodate the
suspect's mental illness, it was irrelevant whether or not the police department
had effectively trained its officer in providing such accommodations to
mentally ill hostage takers. Waller v. City of Danville, Virginia, Case
No. 4:03CV00039, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 73582 (W.D. Va.).
In a prior decision, Curley v. Klem, #01-1093,
298 F.3d 271 (3rd Cir. 2002), a federal appeals court held that a state
trooper was not entitled to qualified immunity for his shooting of a Port
Authority police officer in full uniform who he stated he believed to be
an armed murder suspect he had been pursuing. The injured officer claimed
that trooper unreasonably failed to look into vehicle where the sought
suspect had just committed suicide and unreasonably shot him only because,
like the suspect, he was a "black man with a gun." Subsequently,
on remand, a jury found that the shooting officer's failure to look into
the window of the vehicle was unreasonable but that the officer's action
in shooting the injured officer was not unreasonable. On appeal, the court
found that the jury's verdict, in finding that the officer acted reasonably
under the totality of the circumstances meant that no constitutional violation
occurred. Curley v. Klem, No. 05-4701, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 20213 (3rd
Cir.).
An officer's mistaken use of his handgun,
rather than the taser, which he allegedly intended to shoot an arrestee
with, did not change the fact that the shooting constituted a seizure for
purposes of the Fourth Amendment. Further proceedings were ordered on the
issue of whether the seizure was unreasonable v. Henry v. Purnell, No.
06-1523, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 22436 (4th Cir.).
If a vehicle had come to a stop with the
engine running, and suspects in the car had their hands in the air or on
the steering wheel when officers approached, then an officer who shot and
killed a 16-year-old in the vehicle would not have acted reasonably. If,
on the other hand, as the officer claimed, the car was backing up, and
threatened the safety of the officers or others, the result could be different.
Genuine issues of disputed material fact, therefore, barred qualified immunity
for the officers. Green v. Taylor, No. 06-3583, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 21593
(6th Cir.).
If the facts were as alleged by the plaintiff,
a jury could find that no reasonable officer would have shot and killed
her son, who allegedly posed no immediate risk of death or serious injury
to anyone. Further proceedings were therefore ordered on the claims against
the shooting officer. Claims against a second officer, however, were properly
rejected when he lacked sufficient time to prevent the shooting officer's
alleged use of excessive force. Murray-Ruhl v. Passinault, No. 05-2607,
2007 U.S. App. Lexis 21573 (6th Cir.).
Arrestee who claimed that deputies shot him
numerous times in an attempt to murder him failed to allege a pattern of
racketeering activity as required for a claim under the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961, et seq., when
all of the acts he claimed had occurred arose from the single incident.
Curry v. Baca, No. CV 04-9992, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 56817 (C.D. Cal.).
In a lawsuit claiming that a suspect was
shot and killed during a police raid without provocation and despite the
fact that he was unarmed, the trial court improperly dismissed the lawsuit
on its own motion without providing notice to the family members who were
plaintiffs in the case. Despite the fact that they could not identify which
officer shot the decedent, that information could reasonably be provided
by discovery, and their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims were not
"patently meritless." Rivera v. Sanchez-Ramos, No. 06-2398, 2007
U.S. App. Lexis 18692 (1st Cir.).
When an arrestee failed to comply with the
officers' orders, and made furtive motions in the back of his car, the
fact that bullets were exiting the car from the rear windshield made it
objectively reasonable for one of the officers to perceive that the suspect
was shooting at him. There was no evidence from which it could be reasonably
concluded that an officer's bullet struck the suspect. Even if one of the
officers did shoot the suspect, his actions were objectively reasonable
under the circumstances. Swann v. City of Richmond, No.3:06CV069, 2007
U.S. Dist. Lexis 56907 (E.D. Va.).
Police sergeant acted objectively reasonably
in firing at a stolen car, striking the driver in the back of the neck
and leaving him paralyzed. The car had been reported stolen, was being
driven by a minor, and had evaded attempts to block the vehicle, going
into reverse to collide with an officer's cruiser. When the sergeant pointed
his gun at the driver's head, he was knocked down by the vehicle, prior
to shooting several rounds. No jury, the court concluded, could reasonably
find the use of deadly force unreasonable, based on the driver's decision
to flee and the immediate threat of harm the driver posed to the sergeant,
pedestrians, and other drivers. Williams v. City of Grosse Pointe Park,
No. 05-2409, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 18599 (6th Cir.).
Police officers acted properly in shooting
and killing an allegedly emotionally disturbed 19-year-old, 300-pound man,
6'7" tall, who was attacking an officer with a sword, after they came
to his residence in response to his mother's concern that he might harm
himself because of depression over failing to get a job as an airport security
guard. The decedent allegedly continued to stab the officer despite initial
shots that struck him, responding by saying "ow," but otherwise
continuing his assault. Both federal civil rights and state law liability
claims were rejected. Hayek v. City of St. Paul, No. 06-3802, 2007 U.S.
App. Lexis 15482 (8th Cir.).
If the facts were as stated by an undercover
officer, shot by a fellow officer after reporting that he had already been
shot in the area by a perpetrator, the actions of the shooting officer
were not objectively reasonable. A reasonable officer, arriving on the
scene after there was a report of an officer shot, would have recognized
that the undercover officer did not pose an immediate threat to anyone.
While he had a pistol, he dropped it on the ground, and was not pointing
it at the officers or reaching for it. He was also not actively resisting
arrest or attempting to evade the officers by flight, but was kneeling
in the street under a streetlight by himself, and waving his arms above
his head trying to attract attention. Further, the shooting officer failed
to attempt to give the undercover officer any commands or warnings before
firing at him, and the undercover officer did not match the description
of the suspect sought, who had shot him. Ngo v. Storlie, No. 06-2771, 2007
U.S. App. Lexis 17798 (8th Cir.).
A woman shot by police officers who came
to her apartment after she allegedly threatened to kill herself with a
shotgun failed to show that the search of her apartment violated her civil
rights under Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 52.1. That statute requires, for liability,
that constitutional rights be violated as a result of a threat, intimidation,
or coercion, which was not shown, even if the plaintiff could show that
the search violated the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, the search did
not take place until two hours after the plaintiff had been taken to the
hospital for treatment of her wounds, so that the use of force was not
related to the search. A federal appeals court upheld the jury's verdict
for the city and police officers on claims of both excessive use of force
and under the California statute. Jackson v. City of Fresno, No. 05-16857,
2007 U.S. App. Lexis 11838 (9th Cir.).
If the plaintiff's version of events were
believed, officers who allegedly pursued him without identifying themselves
as police, shot him, beat him, and then shot him again were not entitled
to qualified immunity, because the beating and shooting of a person who
was already shot and was incapacitated, under these circumstances, would
violate clearly established law. The officers, on the other hand, claimed
that they had identified themselves as police and only shot him after he
had shot at them a number of times, as well as denying that they beat him.
Further proceedings were ordered, but claims against the State of Missouri
were rejected on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity. Johnson v. Board
of Police Commissioners, No. 4:06CV605, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 40292 (E.D.
Mo.).
Officers who shot and killed a man who they
believed was holding hostages inside his residence were entitled to summary
judgment. A statement by a plaintiff's expert that it was "highly
unlikely" that the decedent had been pointing a rifle at the officers
at the time of the shooting was insufficient to create a genuine issue
of material fact to require taking the case to a jury, when all officers
at the scene testified that he had done so, and the medical examiner also
expressed an opinion that the evidence supported the officers' version
of the incident. The appeals court also found that it was not reasonable
to infer from the locations of the bullets in the residence that the officers
did not actually believe that there were any hostages and were firing indiscriminately.
Lewis v. Adams County, No. 06-3893, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 9872 (6th Cir.).
An arrestee who was awarded $275,000 in damages
($25,000 compensatory and $250,000 in punitive) on claims that he was "framed"
and maliciously prosecuted on a firearms charge, and that excessive force
was used against him by an officer who shot him in the buttocks, was also
entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and costs of $507,000. The defendant
city failed to convince a federal appeals court that the trial judge had
abused his discretion in refusing to lower the amount of attorneys' fees
awarded. The court rejected the city's argument that the plaintiff's success
should be viewed as "minimal," requiring a reduction in the attorneys'
fees award because the jury award was less than the amount of damages the
plaintiff sought. Additionally, the court stated that the plaintiff's success
should not simply be viewed in monetary terms. ''He effectively persuaded
a jury that a significant number of City of Harvey officials conspired
to plant a gun at the crime scene -- a victory that serves the public interest
by exposing to light disturbing police malfeasance and grave municipal
institutional failures, and one that will presumably help to deter future
constitutional violations by the city's officers,'' the court stated. ''These
achievements are anything but minimal.'' Robinson v. City of Harvey, No.
04-3993 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 13705 (7th Cir.).
Police officers acted reasonably in shooting
and killing a man who approached them in a threatening manner while brandishing
a machete and tire iron. He had been shot with a TASER® multiple times
without effect.. The evidence also showed that other persons were in the
area, and that the suspect had moved towards them more than once. Under
the circumstances, a reasonable fact finder could not find that the officers
acted in a willful or malicious manner. The officers were entitled to dismissal
of both federal civil rights claims and a state law wrongful death claim
arising from the incident. Hassan v. City of Minneapolis, No. 06-3504,
2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12506 (8th Cir.).
In a case where the shooting police officer
was the only surviving witness to the details of what happened when he
shot and killed a man he initially stopped for riding a bicycle on the
wrong side of the road and without lights, the court found that there was
a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the officer used excessive
force. The decedent's estate argued that he did not, due to his physical
limitations, pose a significant threat of death or serious physical injury
to the officer at the time of the shooting. The officer claimed that the
suspect appeared to be drawing or pulling a weapon or object from his right
rear pants pocket at the time of the shooting, and that he believed that
to be a weapon, but subsequently turned out to be a pair of pliers. The
Plaintiff, the decedent's mother, claimed that he had received a gun shot
wound to his dominant right arm less than four months before, and therefore
had almost no use of his right arm. Goodman v. Harris County, No. 05-20807,
2007 U.S. App. Lexis 11318 (5th Cir.).
Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity
for shooting and killing a man sitting in his car with the tires shot out
when they allegedly knew he had no gun, was only in possession of a pocket
knife, was not suspected of any crime, and when the purpose of trying to
get him out of his vehicle was to talk him out of possibly killing himself.
Under these alleged circumstances, no use of deadly force would be justified,
particularly when he was surrounded by a number of police vehicles and
at least ten armed police officers. Lehman v. Robinson, No. 05-15636, 2007
U.S. App. Lexis 8978 (9th Cir.).
Officer did not use excessive force in shooting
and killing a motorist who fled a traffic stop, entered another vehicle,
and hit the officer with the car. Inadequate training claim against city
also rejected. Jenkins v. Bartlett, No. 06-2495, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 9228
(7th Cir.).
Deputies reasonably believed, at the time
they shot at a car attempting to escape them by going in reverse, that
a deputy behind the car was in serious danger of harm, so that they were
entitled to qualified immunity. Webster v. Beary, No. 06-12194, 2007 U.S.
App. Lexis 8142 (11th Cir.).
In a lawsuit over the death of a mentally
impaired man holding a screwdriver, who three officers shot and killed,
the trial court properly denied summary judgment to the officers, based
on the existence of factual disputes about whether the decedent had posed
an immediate threat to the officers when he was shot. The appeals court
found, further, that the trial court had committed an error in considering
the actions of all three of the officers together, and that it should,
on remand, consider each of the officers' actions by themselves to determine
whether any of them had used unreasonable force. Meadours v. Ermel, No.
05-20764, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 7592 (5th Cir.).
Estate of paranoid schizophrenic shot and
killed by police who came to his house in response to a 911 call from his
family requesting assistance failed to show that more adequate training
as to how to respond to incidents involving mentally disturbed persons
would have resulted in a different result. The court found that the officers
did not create the dangerous situation. Thao v. City of St. Paul, No. 06-2339,
2007 U.S. App. Lexis 7553 (8th Cir.).
Two persons shot by a deputy when their pickup
truck started to drive away from a traffic stop as the deputy approached
adequately alleged that the county sheriff, in training programs, did not
clearly define the circumstances under which deadly force could be used,
and that, if any such guidelines existed, the sheriff had violated them.
A relationship between the sheriff's actions and the incident was also
alleged. Official capacity claims against the sheriff, however, were dismissed,
as the county, which was the proper defendant, was named in the complaint.
Rodriguez v. Quintero, Civil Action No. SA-06-CA-64-FB, 2007 U.S. Dist.
Lexis 25296 (W.D. Tex.).
Police officers acted reasonably in shooting
and killing an arrestee who had refused to submit to their attempts to
handcuff him, when they believed that he had his hands on or near one officer's
gun, which had come loose during the struggle between them. Officers are
not required to wait to take action to protect their safety until a resisting
arrestee has completely freed himself and has obtained a "firm grip"
on a weapon. Henning v. O'Leary, No. 06-2378, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 3380
(7th Cir.).
California highway patrol officer was not
entitled to qualified immunity in lawsuit claiming that he shot and killed
teenage driver at conclusion of pursuit without warning and without reason
to belief that he needed to do so to defend himself or others at that time.
Adams v. Speers, No. 05-15159, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 442 (9th Cir.).[N/R]
District of Columbia could not be held liable
for an officer's alleged excessive use of deadly force when there was no
evidence of any official policy or custom which caused the incident, and
there was no evidence of failure to properly train and supervise the officer
on the part of either the District or the police chief. Claim for excessive
use of force remains pending against the officer, who allegedly shot and
killed a woman who failed to respond to his orders that she drop a gun
when she came up a staircase with it in her hand. Reed v. D.C., No. 03-1085,
2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 12252 (D.D.C.).[N/R]
City not liable for misconduct, where a police
trainee who was allowed the use of a marked unit to driver to the police
academy stopped and shot a man for the purpose of robbing him. Trainees
had no police powers, and his motivations were criminal. Georgia interlocal
Risk Management Agency v. Godfrey, 273 Ga. App. 77, 614 S.E.2d 201, 2005
Ga. App. Lexis 381 (2nd Dist. 2005); cert den. 2005 Ga. Lexis 691. [N/R]
Officer acted reasonably in shooting and
killing a suspect who was armed and whom he believed was pointing his gun
at another officer. Livermore v. Lubelan, No. 06-1465, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis
2594 (6th Cir.). [N/R]
Officer acted properly in shooting a man
who ignored orders to show his hands, and instead backed his car into a
security guard's vehicle, followed by accelerating down an alley towards
other police officers in his path. The officer's actions were aimed at
trying to prevent him from injuring the other officers, and were reasonable
under the circumstances, even if the suspect was then experiencing a bipolar
episode. Because of this, there was also no violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA). Sanders v. City of Minneapolis, Minn., No.
06-1356, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 1396 (8th Cir.). [N/R]
New York court declines to dismiss claims
against a production company and two broadcasting companies alleging that
in the course of filming a "reality-based" television program
showing police on patrol they encouraged police to use excessive force,
adopting a common plan to use excessive which resulted in injuries suffered
when a police detective fired his gun, injuring a woman during the execution
of a search warrant. Rodriguez v. City of New York, No. 2004-11173 (Index
No. 20154/04), 2006 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 15242 (2nd Dept.). [N/R]
Officer acted objectively reasonably in shooting
a man at the scene of a domestic disturbance who failed to drop the knife
he was holding until the officer's third order to do so, and then ran towards
him, attempting to escape through a poorly lit area outside the residence.
Under the circumstances, in which the man had threatened to kill his wife,
and the elapsed time between him dropping the knife and running towards
the officer was approximately two seconds, the officer could believe that
the man was a threat to the safety of the officer and the wife. Butler
v. City of Tulsa, No. 06-5078, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 27332 (10th Cir.). [N/R]
Officer who repeatedly attempted to negotiate
with a suspect and get him to drop his weapon before finally shooting and
killing him was entitled to summary judgment because the facts showed no
violation of the decedent's constitutional rights. DeMerrell v. City of
Cheboygan, No. 05-2325, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 27174 (6th Cir.). [N/R]
Despite a prior jury verdict in a federal
civil rights lawsuit in favor of officers who fatally shot a man twenty-two
times as he was attempting to evade arrest, the officers could still possibly
face liability for negligence under California state law for the same incident
on a theory that they unnecessarily put themselves in the way of harm,
and therefore had to "shoot their way out." The jury verdict
in the federal civil rights case only dealt with the constitutionality
of the use of deadly force under the circumstances that existed at the
time of the shooting, and did not decide the question of whether the officers'
prior actions constituted negligence. Hernandez v. City of Pomona, No B182437,
2006 Cal. App. Lexis 1925 (2nd Dist.). [N/R]
Simply because there was no violation of
the Fourth Amendment in shooting and killing a suspect that an officer
reasonably could have believed was armed and was holding a person against
her will did not mean that the appeals court could say that there were
no set of facts from which the plaintiff could establish a claim for either
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12131-12134,
based on the suspect's mental illness or for race discrimination.
The appeals court, therefore, ordered further proceedings on both claims.
Waller v. City of Danville, Virginia, No. 06-1107, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis
30799 (4th Cir.). [N/R]
Because it was factually disputed whether
a suspect actively posed a threat to anyone at the time when an officer
shot and killed him, or whether he was, instead, shot and killed while
he stood motionless with his knife at his side from a distance of ten to
forty feet away when no officer had warned him to drop the knife, further
proceedings were required on an excessive use of force A second officer,
merely present during the incident, who was not alleged to have used any
force at all, however, was entitled to qualified immunity, as his mere
"inaction" during the events could not be a basis for liability
for use of excessive force. Bacque v. Leger, No. 06-30019, 2006 U.S. App.
Lexis 27855 (5th Cir.). [N/R]
Brother of mentally ill man shot to death
by officers inside his home failed to show that the officers used excessive
force or violated his rights under Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12131-12165 by failing to reasonably
accommodate his mental illness. The officers only entered the home to check
on the mentally ill man's welfare and safety, and he was only shot after
he had repeatedly stabbed one of the two officers present. Under these
circumstances, the officers were reasonable in believing that their actions
were legal, and the lawsuit failed to show that the decedent had been denied
governmental services "by reason of" a disability. Buchanan v.
State of Maine, No. 06-1466, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 28352 (1st Cir.). [N/R]
Plaintiff in excessive force lawsuit was
barred from asserting facts which were inconsistent with those he had agreed
to while accepting a plea in his criminal case. Thore v. Howe, No. 06-1627,
2006 U.S. App. Lexis 26817 (1st Cir.). [2006 LR Dec]
Arrestee's lawsuit against deputy for alleged
excessive use of deadly force could be interpreted in a way that success
in the lawsuit did not necessarily imply the invalidity of his arrest and
conviction, and therefore summary judgment should not have been granted
to the deputy. McCann v. Nielsen, No. 05-3699, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 26631
(7th Cir.). [2006 LR Dec]
Deputy who shot unarmed arrestee fleeing
into unpopulated wooded area was not entitled to summary judgment on excessive
force claim. Deputy had previously frisked the arrestee, and found no weapons
on him before he fled on foot from the scene of his drug arrest. Ham v.
Brice, No. 05-50657, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 26617 (5th Cir.). [2006 LR Dec]
Officer who shot three times after a motorist
drove away in a stolen vehicle, hitting and injuring a passenger on the
third shot, was not entitled to qualified immunity in her federal civil
rights lawsuit for alleged excessive use of force. Tubar v. Clift, No.
C05-1154, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 68390 (W.D. Wash.). [N/R]
Failure to give jury explicit instructions
on the legal rules for use of deadly force required a new trial in lawsuit
against officers who shot and maced a bank robber while trying to arrest
him. Robber claimed that he was "peacefully surrendering" when
he was shot, and an instruction concerning the general test for excessive
use of force failed to alert jury as to whether the use of deadly force
was allowed under such circumstances. Rahn v. Hawkins, No. 05-3329, 2006
U.S. App. Lexis 24037 (8th Cir.). [2006 LR Nov]
Officer did not act unreasonably during plaintiff's
arrest by shooting and killing his pit bull. Evidence showed that witnesses
saw the dog growling, being aggressive, and advancing towards the officer,
justifying the officer's actions. Chambers v. Doe, No. Civ. 04-415, 2006
U.S.Dist. Lexis 69965 (D. Del. 2006). [N/R]
In a lawsuit over the fatal shooting of a
suspect by an undercover police officer, the officer was not entitled to
qualified immunity because of issues of fact as to whether, at the time
of the shooting, he reasonably believed that the suspect was armed and
would try to shoot him. The issue was not whether or not the suspect was
actually armed, but what the officer reasonably believed. Bouggess v. Mattingly,
No. Civ.A. 3:04CV-180, 426 F. Supp. 2d 601 (W.D.Ky. 2006). [N/R]
Keeping an eleven-year-old unarmed boy in
handcuffs for 15 minutes, and pointing a gun at his head, while search
and arrest warrants were served on his parents' home, if true, could be
found to be an excessive use of force. Federal agents were not entitled
to qualified immunity. Tekle v. U.S., No. 04-55026, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis
20583 (9th Cir.). [2006 LR Oct]
Three million dollar settlement reached in
lawsuit by family of unarmed man shot and killed by police officer during
a raid on a warehouse where he worked repairing art and musical instruments.
The raid was conducted because police suspected that DVD and CD counterfeiting
was going on in the facility. The former police officer who shot the decedent
was convicted of criminally negligent homicide. Sanfo v. City of New York,
No. 1:04-CV-01760, U.S. Dist. Ct. (S.D.N.Y. 2006).. [N/R]
It was no abuse of discretion to exclude
an expert witness's testimony in an excessive force case involving a police
shooting when the court found that the expert's opinion that a reasonable
officer would have been able to tell that the plaintiff was not holding
a gun, bur rather a cell phone, had "no basis." Hickey v. City
of New York, No. 05-1933-CV, 173 Fed. Appx. 893 (2nd Cir. 2006). [N/R]
Police officers, including S.W.A.T team members,
were entitled to qualified immunity for surrounding the home of a man who
had fired shots into the air and ground nearby, entering the home forcibly
without a warrant, and using pepper gas and a flashbang in an attempt to
flush him out. Assuming that the use of a second flashbang, which burned
down the house, was excessive, it still did not violate any "clearly
established right." Factual disputes about whether the suspect was
still armed and was threatening officers at the time they shot and killed
him, however, barred qualified immunity for the officers on a claim that
the use of deadly force was excessive. Estate of Bing v. City of Whitehall,
No. 05-3889, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 19287 (6th Cir.). [2006 LR Sep]
Police chief was not entitled to qualified
immunity on a Fourth Amendment claim that he acted unreasonably in shooting
and killing a family's pet dog while it was in their enclosed backyard,
mistakenly believing that it was a loose dog that he had earlier pursued
through the neighborhood. Andrews v. City of W. Branch, No. 05-1188, 2006
U.S. App. Lexis 18748 (8th Cir.). [2006 LR Sep]
Experts in the use of deadly force could
not provide testimony based on medical evidence or opinions because this
was found by the court to be outside the area of their expertise, and there
was no showing that such medical reports were the kind of materials that
excessive force experts relied on. Richman v. Sheahan, No. 98C7350, 415
F. Supp. 2d 929 (N.D. Ill. 2006). [N/R]
Police officer's use of deadly force was
reasonable when a suspect refused to comply with his requests and continued
to move towards the officer, reaching for the officer's gun. Blossom v.
Yarbrough, No. 03-5146, 429 F.3d 963 (10th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Officers were not liable for the shooting
death of an 18-year-old involved in a family dispute who allegedly ignored
their demands that he drop a knife and instead continued to move up some
stairs toward the officers. Trial court rejects inadequate training and
supervision claims. While the city had knowledge that the officer who shot
the youth had been involved in at least eight other shootings, resulting
in five other deaths, none of the shootings were ever ruled improper, and
a number of years had passed since the officer last discharged his firearm
in the course of his duties. Estate of Smith v. Silvas, No. 04CV00200,
414 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (D. Colo. 2006). [N/R]
Officer acted reasonably in shooting and
killing a husband at the scene of a domestic disturbance when the husband
refused to raise his hand, kept advancing towards the officer, and was
known to possess guns, as well as telling the officer that "I've got
something for you. You are going to have to kill me." Transporting
wife and her daughter to the police station to take their statements after
the incident was not an "unreasonable seizure," as nothing indicated
that they were not free to leave. DeLuna v. City of Rockford, No. 05-1337,
2006 U.S. App. Lexis 12176 (7th Cir.). [2006 LR Jul]
Officers and city were entitled to summary
judgment on civil rights, state law assault and battery, and negligence
claims arising out of shooting of an arrestee in the hip while he was being
handcuffed. Under New Mexico state law, the arrestee's death, six months
later, from unrelated causes in a swimming accident, extinguished all claims
for intentional misconduct, and there was no waiver of governmental immunity
for the negligence claim under state law. Oliveros v. Mitchell, No. 05-2163,
2006 U.S. App. Lexis 12146 (10th Cir.). [2006 LR Jul]
Man shot and injured by police, supposedly
as an innocent bystander to an undercover drug operation, failed to show
that the District of Columbia had tolerated a pattern of excessive use
of force by police officers, or that it had been deficient in its investigations
of use of force incidents. The District, therefore, could not be held liable
for the plaintiff's injuries. McKnight v. D.C., No. Civ.A.00-CV-2607, 412
F. Supp. 2d 127 (D.D.C. 2006). [N/R]
Use of deadly force to shoot and kill a suspect
fleeing from the scene of an undercover drug bust was only justified if,
at the time of the shooting, the suspect's vehicle posed an imminent danger
to officers. Factual disputes as to whether or not that was the case made
summary judgment in favor of the shooting police detective improper. Sigley
v. City of Parma Heights, No. 05-3035, 437 F.3d 527 (6th Cir. 2006). [2006
LR Jun]
Police officers who shot arrestee did not
use excessive force, since he was armed and had shot at them while they
were pursuing him and his flight from arrest ended in a car-jacking during
which he put a gun to the head of a motorist and did not obey the officers'
orders to halt. Gravely v. Speranza, No. 02-5594, 408 F. Supp. 2d 185 (D.N.J.
2006). [N/R]
Deputy did not use excessive force in shooting
suspect, even if he was not then armed, when the suspect confronted him
again moments after attempting a potentially deadly assault on him, including
throwing a U-bolt through the deputy's windshield, a hammer in the deputy's
vicinity with enough force to shatter a car window, his advance on the
deputy was not stopped by pepper spray, and he had punched the deputy with
a pry bar. Hammond v. Smith, No. 04-73410, 408 F. Supp. 2d 425 (E.D. Mich.
2005). [N/R]
Trial court abused its discretion in granting
summary judgment to police officers in lawsuit over their shooting and
killing of a suspect without allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to discover
whether video cameras in police vehicles at the scene of the incident recorded
it, and what such videotapes might show. Ingle v. Yelton, No. 05-1556,
2006 U.S. App. Lexis 5779 (4th Cir.). [2006 LR Apr]
City of Chicago reaches $1.75 million settlement
with man who lost an eye when officers fired on the vehicle in which he
was traveling as a passenger when he was a 15-year-old. The vehicle was
allegedly then traveling on the sidewalk and towards a group of police
officers on the corner. The officers claimed that they fired in self-defense,
believing that the vehicle was trying to run them down, and the vehicle
did hit one of the officers. The plaintiff in the lawsuit claimed, however,
that the shot that struck him was fired by an officer after the car had
passed him by, and when none of the officers were in any further danger
from the vehicle. A total of 25 shots were fired at the car. Bell v. City
of Chicago, No. 01L3148, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County
Department, Law Division, February 6, 2006, reported in Chicago Daily Law
Bulletin, p. 1, February 7, 2006. [N/R]
Parents of armed robbery suspect shot and
killed by police officers had no standing under California law to pursue
a federal civil rights lawsuit or state law claims arising out of the incident
on their own behalf when they were not financially dependent on the decedent.
Foster v. City of Fresno, No. CVF035306, 392 F. Supp. 2d 1140 (E.D. Cal.
2005). [N/R]
Police officers' shooting and killing of
homeless mentally ill man sitting in a car was not excessive force when
they acted after he raised a gun and did not know, until later, that the
weapon was a BB gun. Under the circumstances, it was reasonable for them
to believe that their lives were at risk. Court also rules that the officers
did not engage in disability discrimination when they called on a SWAT
team to extract the man from his car after the shooting, causing a delay
in medical treatment. The officers could reasonably do this to ensure the
safety of themselves and others at the scene. Ali v. City of Louisville,
No. Civ. A. 3:03CV-427, 395 F. Supp. 2d 527 (W.D. Ky. 2005). [N/R]
In a lawsuit under Texas state law for negligence,
filed by an arrestee who was shot by a sheriff's deputy after a car chase,
a county was entitled to sovereign immunity. A state statute waiving immunity
for certain negligent acts of governmental employees did not apply, as
the shooting was an intentional action. An intermediate state appeals court
reasoned that the exception to the statute's waiver of immunity for intentional
acts could not be "circumvented" merely by claiming that the
county was "negligent" in supervising the employee who commits
an intentional act, such as a shooting. Harris County, Texas v. Cabazos,
No. 01-03-00772-CV, 177 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. App. 1st Dist. 2005). [N/R]
The estate of a detainee who died after being
shot by police who stopped him stated a viable claim against members of
the city's Board of Police Commissioners for liability based on an alleged
official policy or custom of failing to instruct and supervise the officers
on the proper use of deadly force. McNeal v. Zobrist, No. CIV.A. 04-2149,
365 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (D. Kan. 2005). [N/R]
No reasonable juror, federal appeals court
rules, could find that a police officer violated a schizophrenic suspect's
rights by shooting and killing him seconds after he stabbed another officer
with a butcher knife. Untalan v. City of Lorain, No. 04-4489, 430 F.3d
312 (6th Cir. 2005). [2006 LR Feb]
Officer's shooting and killing of drug crime
suspect in his home during execution of search warrant was justified when
the officer was confronted by a weapon upon his entry. No evidence supported
a claim that the officer shot the suspect after he was incapacitated or
when he was helpless. Sterling v. Weaver, No. 04-35346, 146 Fed. Appx.
136 (9th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
City of New York and its police officers
were entitled to immunity from liability under state law for the death
of a man from gunfire that occurred while he was attempting to make an
illegal sale of guns to undercover officers, as there was no evidence that
anything the officers did was inconsistent with acceptable police practices.
The officers were exercising their discretionary professional judgment
at the time of the shooting. Arias v. City of New York, 802 N.Y.S.2d 209
(A.D. 2nd Dept. 2005). [N/R]
If deputy sheriff fired final fatal shot
at arrestee fleeing in stolen police car after the vehicle passed him,
he violated the arrestee's constitutional rights. The arrestee had been
taken into custody for the nonviolent offense of making harassing phone
calls, and no longer posed an immediate threat to the deputy after driving
past him. Smith v. Cupp, No. 04-5783, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 26268 (6th Cir.).
[2006 LR Jan]
Officers were properly held liable for shooting
man in the leg while he fled from the scene of an arson at a garage, when
jury rejected their claim of self-defense. Federal appeals court overturns
jury awards against city, mayor, and police commissioner, however, finding
no evidence of inadequate training or discipline. Compensatory damages
of $4 million to shot man, however, found excessive by $1 million, and
awards of $500,000 to each of his parents also found excessive by $400,000
each. Punitive damage awards of $15,000 against each of two officers upheld.
Whitfield v. Melendez-Rivera, No. 04-1217, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 26549 (1st
Cir.). [2006 LR Jan]
Police officer acted reasonably in shooting
a man who had barricaded himself in his bedroom armed with a number of
guns after officers came to his house in response to a domestic disturbance
call, and who threatened to shoot officers if they attempted to remove
him from the home. Just prior to the officer shooting him, the suspect
had raised a window and announced that he now had a "clean shot."
Phillips v. James, No. 03-4272, 422 F.3d 1075 (10th Cir. 2005). [2005 LR
Dec]
Officers who shot at car containing suspect
attempting to flee from service of felony drug arrest warrant were not
liable for subsequent death of one of his passengers and serious injuries
to another when his car later crashed into a wall. The cause of the death
and injuries was the suspect's decision to flee, not the officers' use
of deadly force. Shooting at the suspect was reasonable when an officer
believed that the suspect was trying to run him over. Troupe v. Sarasota
County, Fla., #04-10550, 419 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2005). [2005 LR Dec]
Motorist's plea of guilty to speeding showed
that officers had probable cause for his arrest, and the officers did not
use excessive force by merely drawing their weapons when the vehicle was
stopped at 3:30 a.m. in a secluded and unlit area. Cunningham v. Sisk,
No. 03-6640, 136 Fed. Appx. 771 (6th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Family of man shot and killed by police officer
could not pursue a federal civil rights claim for deprivation of their
right to familial association in the absence of any evidence that the officers
intended to interfere with their relationship with the decedent, and his
estate was the only party authorized to pursue a claim under New Mexico's
state wrongful death statute. Murphy v. Bitsoih, No. CIV. 02-1185, 320
F. Supp. 2d 1174 (D.N.M. 2004). [N/R]
State of Maine was not liable for the death
of a mentally ill man shot and killed by police as he was attempting to
stab an officer with a knife in his residence. The state's alleged inadequate
provision of mental health services, if proven, did not have a disparate
impact on the decedent, in violation of the American with Disabilities
Act (ADA) provisions prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disabilities
by public entities, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132, as he was not denied any public
service available to able members of the public. Buchanan v. Maine, No.
CIV.04-26, 366 F. Supp. 2d 169 (D. Me. 2005). [N/R]
Federal appeals court, overturning 20-year-old
precedent, rules that parents of an adult son shot and killed by a police
officer could not recover damages in federal civil rights lawsuit for the
loss of the companionship of their son. Russ v. Watts, No. 04-3628, 414
F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2005). [2005 LR Nov]
Officer acted properly, while investigating a prowler
call, in stopping the only car observed in the area, which had tinted windows
obstructing his view inside, and he and another officer acted properly
in attempting to conduct a pat-down search of a passenger outside the vehicle
who was known to be a convicted narcotics felon. Appeals court fails to
reach issues of whether officers acted lawfully, however, in shooting passenger,
and in hitting him and using a dog against him after the shooting, in light
of disputes as to whether he was actually armed with a gun and continued
to pose a threat after he was shot. Holeman v. City of New London, No.
04-5031, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 21213 (2nd Cir.). [2005 LR Nov]
Factual issues concerning whether or not
a man was holding a toy gun or otherwise threatening an officer before
the officer shot and killed him barred granting summary judgment on the
basis of qualified immunity to the officer in the surviving family's federal
civil rights lawsuit. Finks v. City of North Las Vegas, No 04-15806, 135
Fed. Appx. 976 (9th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Officer's shooting and killing of man's pet
dog was not an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The officer
could have, under the circumstances, reasonably believed that the dog posed
an imminent threat to his safety, based on its weight of 55 to 60 lbs,
its speed in traveling 15 feet in five seconds, and the fact that it would
have reached him in five seconds had he not shot it. While the dog owner
did yell that the dog would not hurt the officer, the officer did not have
to wait until the dog was within biting range before taking action to protect
himself. Dziekan v. Gaynor, No. 3:03CV1486, 376 F. Supp. 2d 267 (D. Conn.
2005). [N/R]
Sheriff who shot and killed a man while responding
to a dispatch call about an armed and possibly suicidal person acted in
an objectively reasonable manner when the man had grabbed and raised his
rifle and struggled with the sheriff for possession of the rifle as the
sheriff sought to disarm him. Under the circumstances, the sheriff could
reasonably believe that his own life was in danger. Burnette v. Gee, No.
04-5551, 137 Fed. Appx. 806 (6th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
When officers shot at motorist's car leaving
the scene after the occupants ignored orders to exit their vehicle, and
hit the car, but not any of its occupants, resulting in the motorist leaving
unimpeded, the occupants were not "seized" within the meaning
of the Fourth Amendment, so an occupant's excessive force claim had to
be analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment's "shocks the conscience"
due process legal standard rather than the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness
standard. In this case, the plaintiff did not appeal the trial court's
conclusion that the officers' conduct did not "shock the conscience,"
but unsuccessfully argued that it was excessive and unreasonable because
the Fourth Amendment applied. Ferrante v. Peters, No. 04-3459, 135 Fed.
Appx. 846 (6th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
New York intermediate appellate court upholds
jury's award of $1,375,799.06 for lost earnings and pain and suffering
to the estate of a man shot and killed by officers when he peered out from
where he was standing, after hearing the officers' shots ring out. The
court found that there was evidence that the officers were aware that a
"bystander" was on the street at "this wee hour of the morning,"
and that the man who had flagged them down had pointed out the decedent.
Cusanelli v. New York City Transit Authority, 799 N.Y.S. 2d 36 (A.D. 1st
Dept. 2005). [N/R]
Mother of 30-year-old man shot and killed
by police officer following traffic stop had no constitutionally protected
due process right to the companionship of her son which could be the basis
for a federal civil rights claim on her own behalf. Robertson v. Hecksel,
No. 04-12367, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 17201 (11th Cir.). [2005 LR Oct]
Officers acted objectively reasonably in
shooting and killing a man they were in the process of arresting for a
drug offense when he used his car as a weapon, knocking one officer backwards,
and there was a threat that he would then run over the fallen officer.
Gaxiola v. City of Richmond Police Department, No. 03-16871, 131 Fed. Appx.
508 (9th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Officers had exigent circumstances to enter
a house without waiting for the occupant, a suspected methamphetamine drug
dealer, to answer, based on various evidence giving them reason to believe
that he was likely to be armed. Officers also did not act unreasonably
in returning the suspect's gunshots, and suspect could not assert a claim
for excessive use of force when he was not struck by the officers' bullets.
Cabell v. Rousseau, No. 04-1258, 130 Fed. Appx. 803 (7th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Officer was entitled to qualified immunity
for shooting and killing a suspect in a drug transaction investigation
who was slowly moving a vehicle towards him, which threatened to crush
him into another car. Robinson v. Arrugueta, No. 04-10856, 2005 U.S. App.
Lexis 13456 (11th Cir.). [2005 LR Sep]
Undercover federal drug agent acted reasonably
in fearing for her life and shooting a suspect participating in an attempted
armed robbery during a drug transaction. U.S. government not liable under
Federal Tort Claims Act for agent's actions which caused suspect to be
paralyzed from the waist down. Morales v. US, No. 03-1743, 2005 U.S. App.
Lexis 10082 (6th Cir.). [2005 LR Sep]
Erroneous admission of expert witness testimony
which commented on the credibility of police officers involved in shooting
required a new trial in case where jury returned a verdict against a suspect
shot and paralyzed from the waist down. Nimely v. City of New York, No.
04-3240, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 12712 (2d Cir.). [2005 LR Aug]
Police officers were entitled to qualified
immunity for mistakenly shooting a witness to a shooting who was crawling
towards other officers with a gun in hand. Under the circumstances, a reasonable
officer could have believed that the witness was the shooter and that they
had probable cause to arrest him and use deadly force against him. Flynn
v. Mills, No. 1:03-CV-00515, 361 F. Supp. 2d 866 (S.D. Ind. 2005). [N/R]
Deputies who shot a sword-carrying schizophrenic
man, rendering him paraplegic, after he appeared to be ignoring their orders
to drop the weapon and attempted to enter a house were entitled to qualified
immunity. They did not know that he could not hear their orders, or that
he was attempting to enter his own home. Blanford v. Sacramento County,
No. 03-17146, 406 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2005). [2005 LR Jul]
Police officer who shot unarmed burglar allegedly
obeying his order to exit a cabinet in which he had been hiding was not
entitled to qualified immunity if the facts were as the plaintiff claimed--that
he had not attempted to reach his hand into his pocket. Sample v. Bailey,
No. 04-4174, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 8328 (6th Cir.). [2005 LR Jul]
Federal appeals court lacked jurisdiction
to review a denial of qualified immunity when the defendant police officer
made assertions on appeal which challenged the trial court's factual findings
in a lawsuit concerning his shooting of an arrestee, and whether the shooting
was accidental or intentional. Henry v. Purnell, No. 04-1810, 119 Fed.
Appx. 441 (4th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Factual issues concerning whether off-duty
officer shot bar patron, and whether in doing so, he was acting under color
of law and within the scope of his employment barred summary judgment for
city in patron's federal civil rights lawsuit over the incident. Coles
v. City of Chicago, No. 02C9246, 351 F. Supp. 2d 740 (N.D. Ill. 2005).
[N/R]
Officers acted reasonably in using deadly
force against a suspect who allegedly pointed a weapon at them through
the doorway of his apartment. Estate of Sowards v. City of Trenton, No.
03-2036, 125 Fed. Appx. 31 (6th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Police chief and SWAT team leader were entitled
to qualified immunity on claims for supervisory liability in case where
SWAT officer entering residence shot and killed a man inside the home within
two seconds, and the plaintiffs claimed that the decedent was unarmed.
Nothing showed that they made a deliberate choice to inadequately train
or supervise the officer, which caused the alleged deprivation of the decedent's
rights. Estate of Davis v. City of North Richland Hills, No. 04-10036,
2005 U.S. App. Lexis 5893 (5th Cir.) [2005 LR Jun]
City could be liable for on-duty officer's
mistaken shooting and killing of an off-duty officer also responding to
a disturbance at a restaurant while out of uniform. Federal appeals court
finds sufficient evidence to send to a jury the question of whether the
city was deliberately indifferent to the risk of "friendly fire"
incidents by failing to provide adequate training on identification of
off-duty officers, in light of the risks of its "always armed/always
on-duty" policy. Young v. City of Providence, 404 F.3d 4 (1st Cir.
2005). [2005 LR Jun]
Police officers and sheriff's deputy were
not entitled to qualified immunity for allegedly seizing "truckloads"
of personal property while executing search warrant at residence for the
sole purpose of supporting sentencing enhancement in a pending case by
proving that the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club was a gang, or for shooting
two dogs at the residence. San Jose Charter of the Hells Angels Motorcycle
Club v. City of San Jose, No. 02-16329, 402 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2005). [2005
LR Jun]
U.S. Border Patrol agent who shot and killed
arrestee acted reasonably after the arrestee escaped by kicking the window
out of her patrol car and escaped, subsequently biting her hand, pulling
her hair, hitting her on the head, and attempting to take her gun away
from her. Under these circumstances, and because the arrestee weighed approximately
60 pounds more than the agent, she reasonably feared that the arrestee
might kill her or seriously injure her, justifying the use of deadly force.
Mason v. United States, No. 03-55560, 120 Fed. Appx. 40 (9th Cir. 2005).
[N/R]
City was not liable for officer's shooting
of a man in his home through a kitchen door window when he thought the
man was threatening his wife with a gun. Plaintiffs failed to show a municipal
policy of condoning the excessive use of force, and an expert's opinion
that the city must have had such a policy simply because of the number
of excessive force lawsuits filed was inadequate to create a genuine factual
issue in the absence of any qualitative analysis of these past cases and
their similarity to the current one. Thomas v. Chattanooga, #03-6308, 2005
U.S. App. Lexis 2024 (6th Cir.). [2005 LR Apr]
Officer acted in an objectively reasonable
manner in shooting a 15-year-old burglary suspect who advanced on her with
a knife. Suspect's guilty plea to a criminal charge of threatening the
officer with the knife precluded her from disputing that fact in her subsequent
civil rights lawsuit. Jiron v. City of Lakewood, No. 02-1421, 392 F.3d
410 (10th Cir. 2004). [2005 LR Mar]
Police officer acted reasonably in shooting
and killing a motorist following a traffic stop because the motorist picked
up a gun after it fell to the sidewalk and after the officers ordered him
not to pick up the gun. Bloxson v. Borough of Wilkinsburg, No. 04-1108,
110 Fed. Appx. 279 (3rd Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Burglar who was shot by police officer when
he reached to grab the top of a cabinet in which he was hiding in order
to pull himself out established, for purposes of a qualified immunity analysis,
that the officer used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment
if the facts were as he alleged, since he then would have posed no threat
to the officer, so that the use of deadly force was not objectively reasonable.
Sample v. Bailey, No. 5:04CV344, 337 F. Supp. 2d 1012 (N.D. Ohio 2004).
[N/R]
Police officer who shot and killed victim who was
grappling with his assailant and had wrestled the gun away from the suspect
was not entitled to qualified immunity. If, as was alleged, victim was
not pointing the weapon at the officer, the use of deadly force, which
would necessarily endanger both men, was objectively unreasonable. Craighead
v. Lee, No. 04-1377, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 301(8th Cir. 2005). [2005 LR
Feb]
Police officers properly shot at motorist
whose vehicle lurched towards them, but their continued shots after the
vehicle passed them was unreasonable because the threat to their safety
had ended. The officers were still, however, entitled to qualified immunity
because the issue of continued use of deadly force under such circumstances
had not been clearly decided at the time of the incident. Waterman v. Batton,
No. 04-1096, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 10 (4th Cir. 2005). [2005 LR Feb]
Qualified immunity for off-duty officer working
as a crossing guard who shot and killed motorist did not, by itself, bar
a claim against a police chief for alleged inadequate training, but plaintiffs
failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove that the training provided
was, in fact, inadequate. Roberts v. Shreveport, No. 03-30824, 2005 U.S.
App. Lexis 589 (5th Cir. 2005). [2005 LR Feb]
Officer who shot fleeing felon motorist in
the back was entitled to qualified immunity, U.S. Supreme Court holds,
when prior caselaw did not clearly establish that her conduct violated
his Fourth Amendment rights. Brosseau v. Haugen, No. 03-1261, 2004 U.S.
Lexis 8275. [2005 LR Jan]
Officers acted in an objectively reasonable
manner in shooting and killing a man encountered in the woods armed with
two knives who repeatedly refused to drop them in response to the officers'
orders, and whose actions indicated that he was prepared to use the knives
against them. Huggins v. Weider, No. 03-2333, 105 Fed. Appx. 503 (4th Cir.
2004). [N/R]
Jury verdict in favor of police officer and
city upheld in case where officer shot and killed a man who approached
him with a knife in hand when he responded to a report of a dispute. Where
the jury returned a general verdict in favor of the defendants, and was
not polled by special interrogatories, the appeals court could not determine
the basis on which the jury found for the defendants and had to presume
that the jury "found every issue in favor of the defendants."
The plaintiff therefore failed to provide a record on which reversible
error could be found. Morales v. Moore, No. 24286, 855 A.2d 1041 (Conn.
App. 2004). [N/R]
Estate of man shot and killed by police was
barred, by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, from relitigating the issue
of whether the force used by the officers was excessive. Federal court
had previously found that the officers acted in an objectively reasonable
fashion in shooting and killing the man, a motorist, who had rammed his
vehicle into an officer's vehicle and then continued to push the officer's
vehicle backward. This conclusion in the federal case barred the estate
from pursuing state law claims for assault and battery, negligence, and
intentional infliction of emotional distress, as liability for such claims
would be inconsistent with the resolution of the federal lawsuit. Vanvorous
v. Burmeister, No. 248450, 687 N.W.2d 132 (Mich. App. 2004). [N/R]
Under Louisiana state law, there is no right
to a jury trial in any lawsuit for injury to person or property against
the state, a state agency, officer, or employee, or a political subdivision
of the state or its employees acting in the discharge of his officials
duties or within the course and scope of his employment. A jury trial was
therefore not available on claims by the parents of a son shot and killed
by an off-duty police officer, based on a determination that the officer
acted in the course and scope of his employment or in discharging his official
duties. Robertson v. Hessler, No. 2003-C-1060, 881 So.2d 116 (La. App.
2004). [N/R]
Officer was entitled to qualified immunity
for shooting and killing a husband struggling on the floor with another
officer summoned to the home because of a domestic dispute. Parks v. Pomeroy,
No. 03-2043 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 23262 (8th Cir.2004). [2004 LR Dec]
Officer did not use unreasonable force in
shooting and killing an unarmed motorist who had crashed his car into a
police vehicle and then continued to rev his engine, pushing it backwards
and attempting to force it into a ditch. Officer's action was reasonable
under the circumstances, and therefore did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Vanvorous v. Burmeister, #02-1150, 96 Fed. Appx. 312 (6th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Question of whether officers used excessive
force in shooting a man was for the jury to determine, and they could believe,
on the basis of the evidence, that the suspect, who had pointed a gun at
the officers was trying to escape and disbelieve the plaintiff's asserting
that he was handcuffed and in police custody at the time. Federal appeals
court upholds jury verdict for defendant officers. Palma v. Edwards, No
03-2019, 103 Fed. App. 3 (7th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Officer acted in an objectively reasonable
manner in shooting and killing an intoxicated belligerent suspect who ignored
repeated orders to drop his gun when he raised both his arms simultaneously
while still holding the gun. Estate of Martinez v. City of Federal Way,
No. 03-35210, 105 Fed. Appx. 897 (9th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Plaintiffs failed to show that an official
city policy or custom of deliberate indifference to the need for training
of officers on the use of deadly force caused the death of a motorist shot
and killed by an officer during a pursuit of his vehicle. Genuine issues
of material fact as to whether the officer acted negligently, however,
barred summary judgment for the city in a Texas state law claim. Lopez-Rodriguez
v. City of Levelland, Texas, No. 03-10843, 100 Fed. Appx. 272 (5th Cir.
2004). [N/R]
Officers who allegedly compelled warrantless
entry into a woman's home by threatening to arrest her and put her baby
in foster care were not entitled to qualified immunity. Warrantless entry
was not justified by the fact that a parolee, the subject of the search,
had previously lived there, when he was in jail at the time, and the search
was based on "stale" information. Additionally, no reasonable
officer could have believed that pointing a gun at the five week-old baby
during a search of his room was reasonable under the circumstances. Motley
v. Parks, No. 02-56648 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 19581 (9th Cir.). [2004 LR
Nov]
Officers who shot and
killed a man who demanded they kill him were not entitled to summary judgment
on his estate's federal civil rights claim for excessive force when there
was a factual dispute over whether he was armed with a knife at the time
of the shooting, and whether he posed an immediate threat to them. Murphy
v. Bitsoih, 320 F.Supp.2d 1174 (D.N.M. 2004). [2004 LR Nov]
Police officer acted in an objectively reasonable
manner by using deadly force against the occupants of a truck that was
being driven towards him at a high rate of speed while he stood a few feet
away. Herman v. City of Shannon, No. 04-60027, 104 Fed. Appx. 398 (5th
Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Federal appeals court panel rules, by 2-1
vote, that the failure of a police department to issue officers non-lethal
weaponry, such as OC and batons, did not provide a basis for liability
for shooting an unarmed man running towards an officer. Strong dissent
asserts that a policy of equipping officers only with guns was bound to
result, sooner or later, in the use of unjustified deadly force. Carswell
v. Borough of Homestead, No. 03-2290, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 17732 (3rd Cir.
2004). [2004 LR Oct]
Police officer did not use excessive force
in drawing and pointing his gun at occupants of a vehicle even though they
were not resisting in any way and had only committed a traffic violation,
when they had guns in the vehicle and were in a high-crime neighborhood
at 1 a.m. in the morning. Ready v. City of Mesa, #02-17102, 89 Fed. Appx.
44 (9th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Police officer who shot and killed suicidal
man who attempted to stand in front of moving traffic on a highway, told
him that "I am Jesus Christ [...] I am going to die and so are you!"
and then attacked him, was entitled to qualified immunity from liability,
as he acted in reasonable self defense. Kesinger v. Conner, No. 03-13883,
2004 U.S. App. Lexis 18160 (11th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Oct]
Jury verdict awarding damages on the basis
of officer's alleged unreasonable use of deadly force in shooting and killing
a woman armed with two knives inside her house with family members upheld.
Intermediate California appeals court, however, rules that city, while
vicariously liable for officer's actions, could not be held liable on theories
of inadequate training or supervision or other "direct negligence"
theories, in the absence of a clear statutory duty which was breached.
Munoz v. City of Union City, No. A095846, 2004 Cal. App. Lexis 1187 (Cal.
1st App. Dist.). [2004 LR Sep]
Police officers' actions in shooting and
killing a deaf man armed with a rifle in a parking lot who intended to
protest discriminatory treatment of disabled people did not constitute
disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The shooting occurred because the decedent's actions threatened others,
not because of his disability. Vincent v. Town of Scarborough, #02-239,
2003 U.S. Dist. Lexis 20910; confirmed, 2003 U.S. Dist. Lexis 22934 (D.
Me. 2003). [2004 LR Sep]
Officer acted in an objectively reasonably
manner in shooting and killing a suspect who had fired a gun at an officer,
refused to lower his gun when ordered to do so, and then retreated into
his home, where the officer feared he would pose an even greater threat
to officers on the scene once he was out of sight. Elkins v. McKenzie,
No. 2002-IA-00845-SCT, 865 So. 2d 1065 (Miss. 2003). [N/R]
Officers did not use excessive force in first
using pepper spray and then shooting a motorist who pulled a knife on them
after initially refusing to submit to a stop on suspicion of intoxicated
driving. Gaddis v. Redford Township, #02-1483, 364 F.3d 763 (6th Cir. 2004).
[2004 LR Aug]
Police officials were not entitled to qualified
immunity on supervisory liability claims based on their allowing a sergeant
to supervise a "high impact" unit which was involved in the shooting
death of a suspect. This was based on the sergeant's past disciplinary
record, which allegedly showed that he could not control his emotions and
was not "truthful and honest." There was a factual issue as to
whether the officers allegedly involved in misconduct in the suspect's
death acted on the sergeant's orders and whether the failure of higher-up
supervisors to take stronger measures to discipline the sergeant had an
"affirmative link" to the alleged violation of the decedent's
rights. Court also holds, as to the officers, that there was a genuine
factual issue as to whether the decedent had been carrying a gun and whether
the officers planted a rifle next to his body after he was shot. Officers
were therefore not entitled to qualified immunity on excessive force claim
or judgment as a matter of law on defamation claim arising from publication
in newspaper of photo showing gun next to body. Gonzalez Perez v. Gomez
Aguila, 312 F. Supp. 2d 161 (D. Puerto Rico 2004). [N/R]
Motorist shot by police officer after car
chase, who was awarded $250,000 on his excessive force claim, was also
entitled to an award of $95,836.65 for legal fees and $11,758.40 for costs,
for a total of $107,595.05. Court rules that time attorney spent investigating
the pursuit route and the scene of the shooting was compensable as part
of attorneys' fee award, that the cost of hotel expenses for an out-of-state
lawyer were not recoverable without an explanation for why it was necessary
to hire an out-of-state lawyer. Reduction in requested fees was required
based on plaintiff only prevailing against one of four defendants and on
only two of fourteen claims originally asserted. Parker v. Town of Swansea,
310 F. Supp. 2d 376 (D. Mass. 2004). [N/R]
City was not liable for alleged wrongful
shooting and killing of woman by off-duty police officer, despite alleged
awareness of officer's "violent behavior" towards the victim
on prior occasions and his alleged substance abuse. In addition to the
officer not being on duty at the time of the incident, the police department
was not notified of the situation occurring at the victim's residence,
and was therefore not aware of any need to intervene. Burkhart v. Knepper,
310 F. Supp. 2d 734 (W.D. Pa. 2004). [N/R]
Officer acted in an objectively reasonable
manner by shooting suspect during execution of search warrant on residence.
Officer had been told that resident was suspected of homicide, had a violent
history, and had previously shot a police officer, and that he was known
to carry guns. The officer, on entering the home, saw the suspect lift
his right arm and believed that an object he was carrying was a gun. The
fact that the object subsequently turned out to be a Bic cigarette lighter
did not alter the result. Trusdale v. Bell, No. 02-6398, 85 Fed. Appx.
691 (10th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Officers' actions in approaching a "distraught"
woman armed with a handgun with their own weapons drawn and issuing commands
to her did not render them liable for her subsequent death when she began
pointing her weapon at one of them and she was shot and killed. Court rejects
the argument that their conduct unreasonably "provoked" a confrontation
which resulted in the death. Neuburger v. Thompson, 303 F. Supp. 2d 521
(W.D. Pa. 2004). [N/R]
Police officers could reasonably have believed
that their safety was in danger even if the plaintiff's version of the
incident were believed--i.e., that he turned and faced an officer with
his gun in his hand down by his side. Officers were therefore entitled
to qualified immunity for their shooting plaintiff several times. Cunningham
v. Hamilton, #03-1639, 84 Fed. Appx. 357 (4th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Officers acted reasonably in shooting man
who allegedly failed to obey orders to put down an 8.5" knife which
he had when they responded to his sister's call that he was "going
crazy" and needed to "be committed somewhere." No evidence
contradicted officers' testimony that the man charged at an officer with
the knife, as sister's claim that her brother was trying to lay the knife
on a picnic table after withdrawing it from a sheath was "pure speculation,"
given that she was not present at the time. Santana v. City of Hartford,
283 F. Supp. 2d 720 (D. Conn. 2003). [N/R]
Federal appeals court lacked jurisdiction
to hear appeal of denial of qualified immunity to officers who shot man
with a history of mental illness who they shot several times after responding
to his 911 call. Trial court found that there were genuine contested issues
of material fact, and appeals could not review that finding. Goffney v.
Carr, #03-20072, 78 Fed. Appx. 974 (5th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Minor child of motorist mistakenly shot and
killed by police officers following pursuit, based on incorrect belief
that he was suspect wanted for stealing police pistol, could not intervene
in a wrongful death claim brought under Virginia state law by the personal
representative of the decedent's estate. Personal representative adequately
represented minor's interest as a beneficiary of the estate. A mere difference
of opinion concerning litigation tactics did not show that personal representative's
actions were "inadequate" as would justify a right to intervene
in the case for the minor beneficiary. Jones v. Prince George's County,
Maryland, #02-7104, 348 F.3d 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Officers acted reasonably in using pepper
spray in an attempt to subdue an emotionally disturbed suicidal man who
was armed with an axe and had previously taken hostages, and in shooting
and killing him when he responded to the pepper spray by lifting the axe
and running towards them. Isom v. Town of Warren, No. 03-1765, 360 F.3d
7 (1st Cir. 2004). [2004 LR May]
Police officer was not entitled to qualified
immunity on claim that he shot a fleeing pedestrian in the back after the
pedestrian, who was armed, purportedly dropped his handgun. If facts were
as plaintiff asserted, officer could not reasonably have believed that
he was authorized to use deadly force without warning under the circumstances.
Pablo Hernandez v. City of Miami, 302 F. Supp. 2d 1373 (S.D. Fla. 2004).
[N/R]
Estate of mentally ill man shot and killed
by police officers after use of bean bag pellets and pepper spray failed
to subdue him presented a genuine issue of fact as to whether officers
had been inadequately trained in dealing with mentally ill persons and
in the use of impact projectiles, and whether the alleged inadequate training
caused his death. Herrera v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department,
298 F. Supp. 2d 1043 (D. Nev. 2004). [N/R]
Maryland jury awards $105 million in damages
to family of unarmed man shot and killed by Baltimore police officer. While
officer claimed the man was holding a gun and turning towards him, evidence
in the case led to the officer subsequently pleading guilty to murder charges.
The shooting allegedly occurred because the officer believed the man was
having an affair with his wife. Estate of Little v. Price, No. 24-c-02-000997
(Baltimore City, Md., Cir. Ct.), reported in The National Law Journal,
page 20 (February 9, 2004). [2004 LR Apr]
Federal appeals court upholds jury award
of $1 million to arrestee who was shot in his bed by an officer, allegedly
with his hands up, while in possession of a shotgun in his lap. Mere possession
of a weapon, without any indication that a suspect is going to use it,
is an insufficient basis for the use of deadly force. Robinson v. Nolte,
No. 02-55094, 77 Fed. Appx. 413 (9th Cir. 2003). [2004 LR Apr]
Police officers were not entitled to qualified
immunity in lawsuit brought by family of mentally ill man they shot and
killed while he was driving his vehicle towards a toll plaza. Plaintiffs
claimed that the officers shot him multiple times at close range and continued
firing after all officers were out of the way of his vehicle, intending
to hurt or kill him. Waterman v. Batton, 294 F. Supp. 2d 709 (D. Md. 2003).
[2004 LR Apr]
County was not liable for police officer's
shooting of suspect who had taken hostages in his car, even if he had his
hands up when he was shot, when the suspect and his accomplice were known
to be armed and the suspect allegedly quickly opened the car door and lunged
out so that the officer could not see his right hand at the time he fired.
County review board reasonably decided that officer's shooting did not
violate police department's use of force rules. Kanae v. Hodson, 294 F.
Supp. 2d 1179 (D. Hawaii 2003). [N/R]
Officer was not entitled to qualified immunity
on claim that he shot a mentally ill man in the stomach as he pointed a
butcher knife towards himself with suicidal intentions, as deadly force
is only permissible when a suspect poses an imminent threat to an officer
or to others. Buchanan v. City of Milwaukee, 290 F. Supp. 2d 954 (E.D.
Wis. 2003). [2004 LR Mar]
Officers had a reasonable belief that a man
posed an imminent risk to their lives and the lives of commuters when he
boarded a train dressed in army fatigues with a mask over his nose while
carrying a wooden staff and military sword. Officers did not use excessive
force in spraying him with pepper spray and shooting him without killing
him after he refused to obey their orders to put the staff down and leave
the train. Stevens v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority Police Department,
293 F. Supp. 2d 415 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
Father of adult son, in the absence of evidence
that son was not emancipated, could not recover damages for violation of
his parental liberty interest in son's companionship in lawsuit against
city and police officers who allegedly shot and killed son. Federal appeals
court, overturning prior lower court decisions in the Third Circuit, holds
that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not extent
to a parent's interest in the companionship of an independent adult child.
McCurdy v. Dodd, No. 02-2708, 352 F.3d 820 (3rd Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Plaintiff who was shot by police officer
could not withhold his medical records in a federal civil rights lawsuit
against the city and officer on the basis of doctor-patient privilege or
medical records privilege, nor could he assert the right of privacy based
on a provision of the California state constitution to prevent the disclosure
of those records. The plaintiff, who claimed that he was shot in the back
because the officer was in poor physical condition and was therefore unable
to pursue him on foot, was also entitled in the case to the disclosure
of the officer's medical records, including those in a workers' compensation
file. Hutton v. City of Martinez, 219 F.R.D. 164 (N.D. Cal. 2003). [N/R]
Genuine factual issues as to whether mayor
and police commissioner adopted proper regulations regarding the use of
firearms and whether officers were properly trained on those regulations
barred summary judgment on lawsuit against them by arrestee who was shot
twice while running away from parking ramp while allegedly unarmed. Whitfield
v. Municipality of Fajardo, 279 F. Supp. 2d 115 (D. Puerto Rico 2003).
[N/R]
Officer who shot a suspect as he attempted
to drive away in a vehicle did not act reasonably if there was no evidence
that he posed a threat of serious harm to others or was armed with a weapon.
Haugen v. Brosseau, #01-35954, 339 F.3d 857 (9th Cir. 2003). [2004 LR Jan]
Officer was entitled to qualified immunity
for shooting and killing a suspect who turned around and drove his vehicle
towards officers at the conclusion of a high-speed pursuit. Officer could
reasonably believe that the motorist was posing a significant threat of
physical injury or death to himself and others. Hernandez v. Jarman, No.
02-3519, 340 F.3d 617 (8th Cir. 2003). [2004 LR Jan]
Officer could have reasonably believed that
he had probable cause to arrest a juvenile female for evading detection
when she drove away as he ran up behind her vehicle calling out "police,
stop," after seeing people begin to flee from the area around her
vehicle when he shined a spotlight on it. Officer was therefore entitled
to qualified immunity for making an arrest, but there were genuine issues
of fact precluding summary judgment as to whether or not he was justified
in using deadly force in firing at the tire of her vehicle after she allegedly
pulled to the right, nearly striking him, as he ran alongside the vehicle.
Flores v. City of Palacios, 270 F. Supp. 2d 865 (S.D. Tex. 2003). [N/R]
A genuine issue of material fact as to whether
a house occupant being arrested for disorderly conduct was or was not "lunging"
at a police officer when the officer shot and killed him precluded summary
judgment in favor of the officer in an excessive force lawsuit brought
by the decedent's estate. LA v. Hayducka, 269 F. Supp. 2d 566 (D.N.J. 2003).
[N/R]
Highway patrol officer did not violate the
rights of an allegedly intoxicated motorist he shot and killed while fighting
in the motorist's vehicle as the suspect attempted to drive off. Officer
could reasonably have feared for his own life, as well as the life and
safety of others traveling on the highway, having failed to prevent the
suspect from driving and being in the motorist's vehicle struggling with
him as it went down the road. Anderson v. Cash, No. 02-6356, 70 Fed. Appx.
251 (6th. Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Officers acted in an objectively reasonable
manner in shooting at persons who they believed, even if mistakenly, were
going to use deadly force against them. Carr v. Tatangelo, No. 01-14621,
338 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Nov]
Firing at a car with the intent to stop a
suspect, when the officer did not succeed in doing so, was not a "seizure"
for purposes of a Fourth Amendment claim for excessive use of force. The
officer did not physically impair the suspect's ability to leave the scene,
since he missed hitting him, so no constitutional violation was shown.
Adams v. City of Auburn Hills, No. 02-1379, 336 F.3d 515 (6th Cir. 2003).
[N/R]
Officers did not use excessive force by using
non-lethal bean-bag gun and pepper spray to subdue a suspect who had assaulted
two neighbors and his wife, threatened the occupants of a next door apartment
with knives, and then barricaded himself in his apartment, threatening
to "kill" officers if they attempted to enter, and continued
to resist them after they did so. Disputed facts about whether the arrestee
was then nude or still holding his knife at the time did not change the
outcome. Peoples v. Kimmey, No. 02-1109, 67 Fed. Appx. 506 (10th Cir. 2003).
[N/R]
Jury's verdict for defendant police officer
in case accusing him of excessive force in shooting fleeing suspect in
the back was inconsistent in finding that the officer used excessive force,
but was nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity. Appeals court finds
that jury was allowed to decide issue of qualified immunity without being
given adequate instructions on how to do so. Stephenson v. Doe, #00-93,
332 F.3d 68 (2nd Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Oct]
Police chief did not use excessive force
in personally shooting and killing a man "brandishing" an 18
to 20 inch sword who raised it towards officers at the scene of a disturbance.
Mace v. City of Palestine, No. 02-40335, 333 F.3d 621 (5th Cir. 2003).
[2003 LR Sep]
Officer was not required to give advance
warning of his use of pepper spray in his attempt to subdue a man, armed
with a walking stick, who was suspected of having already used it to inflict
serious injury on a woman in a laundromat who was observed bleeding profusely
from her head at the scene. Further, his use of deadly force was also justified
when the suspect appeared ready to attack him and refused orders to drop
the stick. McCormick v. City of Fort Lauderdale, No. 01-16567, 333 F.3d
1234 (11th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Sep]
Federal appeals court holds that privately
owned pet dogs are personal "effects" protected under the Fourth
Amendment from unreasonable searches and seizures, but also finds that
animal control officers' actions in shooting and killing the plaintiffs'
dogs were objectively reasonable under circumstances where the dogs posed
an actual or potential threat to the officers or others. Altman v. City
of High Point, North Carolina, No. 02-1178, 330 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 2003).
[2003 LR Sep]
Officers were entitled to qualified immunity
for shooting a man who refused to drop his handgun after he was ordered
to do so. Officers were responding to reports of shots fired in a high-crime
area and could reasonably believe that the suspect presented a serious
threat of personal harm to them once he disobeyed orders to drop the weapon,
regardless of whether or not he was then pointing the weapon at the officers.
Cunningham v. Hamilton, 259 F. Supp. 2d 457 (E.D. Va. 2003). [N/R]
County and officer could be sued under Florida
law for injuries that bystander suffered when he slipped and fell when
officer startled him by pointed a gun at him and yelling a him to freeze
while conducting a prostitution "sting" operation. Officer's
actions created a "foreseeable zone of risk" to the bystander
and county was not immune from suit because his injuries were allegedly
caused by the manner in which the police implemented their operation. Brown
v. Miami-Dade County, No. 3D00-3540, 837 So. 2d 414 (Fla. App. 2001), order
denying rehearing en banc (2003). [N/R]
Georgia Supreme Court holds that, under state
law, a parent of an adult child murdered by his surviving spouse can pursue
a wrongful death claim against the alleged murderer or against "other
parties" that proximately caused the death, answering a question certified
to it by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in a case where
the murdered son's mother asserted state wrongful death claims against
the wife, a police chief, and the city. The claims against the city and
police chief were based on the fact that the alleged murderer was a police
captain who had previously attempted suicide. The police chief had ordered
her to remove all weapons from her home, but did not relieve her of her
duties, and she used her service revolver to shoot and kill her husband.
Carringer v. Rodgers, No. SO2Q1483, 578 S.E.2d 841 (Ga. 2003). [N/R]
Sheriff and SWAT team members were not entitled
to qualified immunity for death of man shot and killed in his home after
he resisted being taken into custody for a psychiatric evaluation. If plaintiff's
factual allegations were true, and decedent was in the process of surrendering
when he was shot and killed, use of deadly force against him was clearly
excessive. Warrantless entry into the home when the man had "not committed"
any crimes and there was no immediate need to subdue him was "reckless"
and an excessive use of force. Federman v. County of Kern, No. 01-16691,
2003 U.S. App. Lexis 7180 (9th Cir.). [2003 LR Jun]
Officers did not violate any clearly established
constitutional rights in 1987 when they made a "split second"
decision to shoot a suspect after she had thrown a knife at one of them
in an attempt to kill him, and made an assault on a second officer by throwing
a glass at him, as well as being near a source of additional potential
weapons. They were therefore entitled to qualified immunity. No prior case
law from either the U.S. Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit ruled that using deadly force under such circumstances
was excessive. Willingham v. Loughnan, No. 99-4005, 321 F.3d 1299 (11th
Cir. 2003). [N/R]
A factual issue as to whether an officer
was inside or outside of his vehicle when a motorist began driving towards
him prevented summary judgment on the issue of whether the officer reasonably
feared for his own safety and life at the time he shot and killed the motorist.
Martin v. Dishong, #02-1173, 57 Fed. Appx. 153 (4th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Whether or not the decedent was the bank
robber sought or not did not impact the issue of whether the officers were
justified in shooting him since he did threaten them with a gun. Plaintiff
in excessive force lawsuit against city and officers failed to show that
the first shots fired against the suspect incapacitated him, or that he
did not point his weapon at the officer after these shots, justifying the
shots which killed him. Muhammed v. City of Chicago, #01-4187, 316 F.3d
680 (7th Cir. 2002). [2003 LR May]
Family of youth shot and killed inside his
parent's house when he brandished a rifle at an officer can pursue its
claim for wrongful death against township and officer under New Jersey
state law based on the possibility that the officer engaged in "willful
misconduct" in allegedly violating a standing order concerning "establishing
a perimeter" in hostage, barricade, or sniper situations. Clarke v.
Township of Mount Laurel, 815 A.2d 502 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2003). [2003 LR May]
Police officer acted objectively reasonable
in shooting and killing a 6 foot tall 180 lb 18 year-old armed with a knife
who had self-inflicted cuts on himself, refused to relinquish his knife,
and began to charge at the officer with it, so that the officer feared
for his life. No evidence of inadequate training was produced against municipality.
Easley v. Kirmsee, 235 F. Supp. 2d 945 (E.D.Wis. 2002). [2003 LR May]
Defendant police officer could not challenge,
on appeal of an initial denial of qualified immunity, the trial court's
determination that sufficient evidence existed from which a finder of fact
could conclude that the plaintiff arrestee was fleeing and no longer posed
a threat when the officer shot him. This was an attempt to challenge the
"genuineness" of the factual disputes in the case, rather than
their "materiality." A proper challenge on appeal would be one
to their "materiality," i.e., contending that no violation of
a clearly established federal right would be shown even if all of the plaintiff's
factual allegations were true. Reyes v. City of Richmond, Tex., #01-20398,
287 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2002) . [N/R]
Officers were properly granted summary judgment
in lawsuit brought by suicidal man armed with knives who threatened his
wife and officers and then was subdued by shooting him with "beanbag"
rounds. Officers use of force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances,
and appeals court expresses agreement with trial judge that plaintiff should
have "thanked" rather than sued the officers. Bell v. Irwin,
#02-2262, 321 F.3d 637, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis
3415 (7th Cir.). [2003 LR Apr]
No reasonable jury could find that a police
officer acted objectively unreasonably in shooting an armed suspect who
fired the first shot, steadily advanced on the officer, and refused to
obey the officer's orders. Firing officer reasonably believed that he was
in jeopardy and that a fellow officer was under attack. Plaintiff's admission,
in his criminal case, that he acted recklessly was "damning"
in his civil rights claim. No claim against municipality could be pursued
under the circumstances. Jaques v. Town of Londonderry, #02-1872, 54 Fed.
Appx. 14 (1st Cir. 2002). [2003 LR Apr]
Disputed issues of fact as to whether or
not the police officers reasonably believed that they saw a motorist point
or fire a gun at them following a traffic stop precluded summary judgment
of the basis of qualified immunity for the officers in a lawsuit over their
shooting and killing of the motorist. Lee v. Hanna, #01-55403, 32 Fed.
Appx. 937 (9th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Jury properly awarded damages to estate of
man shot and killed as he held his mother hostage with a knife and threatened
to kill her if his ex-girlfriend was not brought to him, D.C. high court
rules, but jury's $2.1 million compensatory damages award is reduced to
$180,000, and $3.999 million punitive damage award was improper since there
was no evidence to support a finding that the officers shot the decedent
with an "evil motive" or "actual malice." District
of Columbia v. Jackson, No. 99-CV-756, 810 A.2d 388 (D.C. 2002). [2003
LR Mar]
No liability for police officer who entered
home in response to two dropped 911 calls made during an ongoing domestic
violence incident and subsequently shot and killed a man inside armed with
a gun. Appeals court finds that "substantial evidence" supported
the jury's finding that the officer had implied consent to enter the home
when the "terrified" young female who opened the door did not
respond to his questions, but stepped back and did not object when he entered.
Pavao v. Pagay, #01-15201, 307 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2002). [2003 LR Feb.]
Officers who were present but did not participate
in fellow officers' shooting of robbery suspects could not be held liable
under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for the use of excessive force in the absence
of any proof that they had control over the police department's operations,
or the actions of the officers who did fire. Further, nothing showed that
they set into motion any action that resulted in the shooting or that they
authorized, approved, or acquiesced in the shooting. Their mere presence
was not enough to pursue claims against them. Figueroa v. Gates, 207 F.
Supp. 2d 1085 (C.D. 2002).[N/R]
Dismissal of an arrestee's federal civil
rights lawsuit alleging excessive force in his shooting by an officer was
not appropriate for failure to prosecute, despite the inactivity of the
case during two years since the plaintiff's release from prison. Plaintiff
had not failed to comply with any court orders or to appear for any scheduled
depositions and the plaintiff was unable to leave New York to litigate
his claim in Pennsylvania due to the conditions of his parole. No prejudice
would be suffered by the defendants by proceeding with the case since statements
were taken on the day of the shooting and the depositions of both the plaintiff
and the defendant officer were already taken. Baxter v. Lancaster County,
214 F. Supp. 2d 482 (E.D. Pa. 2002).[N/R]
Police chief's shooting and killing of an
intoxicated, disturbed man wielding a sword and verbally threatening bodily
harm to officers was objectively reasonable, despite arguments that he
failed to "exhaust" all other options available to "contain"
the individual and violated a department policy by