In City of Tahlequah v. Bond, published October 18, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court, per curiam, reversed a 10th Circuit decision reversing summary judgment for officer defendants. The officers responded to a call that the complaining party's ex-husband was in her garage, was intoxicated, and would not leave. The officers went to the side-entrance of the garage and attempted to persuade the suspect to submit to a pat-down search. He refused. One of the officers stepped toward the doorway. The suspect stepped back and walked toward the back of the garage, where his tools were hanging. The officers followed, and ordered him to stop. The suspect kept walking. He grabbed a hammer in both hands and pulled it up to shoulder level. The officers drew their guns and ordered the suspect to drop the hammer. The suspect did not do so, and instead walked around furniture so that he had a clear path toward an officer. He raised the hammer higher back behind his head, as if to throw the hammer or charge the officers. The defendant officers fired and killed the suspect. The suspect's estate sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, alleging use of excessive force. The district court granted the officers summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The 10th Circuit concluded the officers violated the Fourth Amendment by engaging in conduct that brought about the use of deadly force, and held that several cases clearly established the officers' actions were unlawful.
The Supreme Court declined to rule whether the officers violated the Fourth Amendment, or whether recklessly creating a situation that requires deadly force can itself violate the Fourth Amendment. None of the cases the 10th Circuit relied on dealt with a situation where the officers engaged in a conversation with the suspect, followed him into a garage at a distance of 6 to 10 feet, and did not yell until he picked up a hammer. The most similar case involved officers sprinting toward a potentially suicidal person and attempting to wrest a gun from his hands. Because neither the circuit nor the plaintiff could identify a single precedent finding a Fourth Amendment violation under similar circumstances, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity.
Comments