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