# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 13 85

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Tawan a Hen de rs on , as Tru st ee fo r th e Nex t-o f-Ki n o f Mar k Eri c Hen de rs on

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Ci ty of W oo db ur y ; Offi cer An th on y Ofst ead ; Offi cer Nat al ie Mart in ; Offi cer St acey Krech , in th ei r in di vi du al an d o ffi ci al cap aci ti es

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 14 , 20 18 Fi le d: Nov em

be r 28 , 20 18

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , MURPHY an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s. *

__ __ __ __ __ __
SMI TH, Chi ef J ud ge

.

On Aug us t 31
, 20 12
, Mar k Hen de rs on (“ Mar k” ) at te nd ed a pa rty at a ho te l

ro om in W oo db u r y, Mi nn es ot a. The ga th eri ng tu rn ed in to a ho st ag e si tu at io n, an d

Ch ie f Ju dg e Sm it h an d Ju dg e Co ll ot on fil e th is op in i o n pu rs ua nt to 8t h Ci r. * Ru le 47 E.Mar k was sh ot m ul ti pl e ti m es by W oo db ur y Po li ce Dep a r t men t Offi cers St acey Krech
, Nata li e Bau er, an d Ant ho ny Ofst ead aft er he at te m pt ed to es cap e th e or de al

. 1

Mar k’s m ot he r, Tawan a Hen de rs on (“ Tawan a”), as tru st ee fo r Mar k’s ne xt -o f-k in
, fil ed a la wsu it un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 ag ai ns t th e Ci ty of W oo d b u r y ( “ Ci ty”) an d
Offi cers Krech
, Bau er, an d O f s te ad

. The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e of fic ers

were en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y an d gr an te d t h e m an d th e Ci ty su m m ary jud gm en t. Tawan a n ow ap pe al s. We reve rs e.

I. Bac kg ro un d 2

Mar k Hen de rs on , a 19 -y ear- ol d bl ack m an , was at te nd in g a pa rty he ld in Ro om 21 7 of a Red Ro of In n in W oo db ur y , Mi nn es ot a. W it ho ut warn in g, on e of th e gu es ts ,
an ot he r y ou ng bl ack m al e na m ed Dem et riu s Bal li ng er, pu ll ed a gu n. Bal li ng er ro bb ed
th e ot he r gu es ts , i nc lu di ng Mar k, an d he ld t h e m ho st ag e. One of th e y ou ng wom en
at th e pa rty cal le d 91 1 an d th en hi d he r ph on e. Tho ug h th e cal le r was un ab le to sp eak
wit h th e o p e r a to r, th e op erat or ke pt th e li ne op en an d li st en ed to th e au di bl e au di o fro m th e m ot el roo m

th ro ug h t he ph on e.

Bas ed on th is au di o, th e 91 1 op erat or di sc ern ed an ap pa r e n t c o n fro nt at io n be twee n so m eo ne wit h a gu n an d an ot he r pe rs o n wit h a kn ife

. The pe rs on wit h th e
gu n (Bal li ng er) de m an de d th at th e p e r s o n wit h th e kn ife (Ma rk ) gi ve it up

. The
di sp at ch er al ert ed po li ce an d rep or te d “ he ar[i ng ] two m al es ta lk in g ab ou t a kn ife —i t

so un ds li ke on e po ss ib ly to ok it fro m th e ot he r an d he ’s tryin g t o g e t it ba ck ” to

Nata li e Bau er was fo rm erl y kn own as “ Nata li e Mar ti n” an d was su ed un de r 1 th e la tt er na m e. Howev er, in ke ep in g wit h th e di st ric t c ou rt, we refe r to he r as

“ Nata li e Bau er.”

“ W e reci te th e fact s in th e l i g h t m os t fav or ab le to [Hen de rs on ], as th e 2

no nm ov in g pa r t [ y] .” O’Bri en v. Dep ’t of Agr ic

. , 53 2 F.3 d 80 5, 80 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

-2

-po li ce. Hen de rs on v. Ci ty of W oo db ur y , 2 33 F. S u p p

. 3d 72 3, 72 6 (D. Mi nn . 2 01 7) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

Dis pa tc h de te rm in ed th a t th e cal l or ig in at ed fro m th e Red Ro of In n. Bu t, di sp at ch was un cert ai n as to whi ch gu es t ro om

. Upo n arri va l, of fic ers tri ed to fin d th e

ro om th ro ug h gu es t reco rd s an d by dr iv in g aro un d th e ho te l. W he n th is pr ov ed

un su cces sf

ul
, th e of fic ers be ga n to can va ss th e bu il di ng by fo ot

. W al ki ng in th e le ad

was Offi cer Kre ch , fol lo wed by O ffi cers Bau er an d R y an Sch ro ed er. Offi cer Krech

cam e acro ss Ro om 21 7, an d th ro ug h a ga p be twee n th e win do w an d cu rta in
, sh e sa w

an an im at ed bl ack m al e in a da rk sh irt (Bal li ng er). Offi cer Krech th en ap pr oa ch ed th e do or to se e if sh e co ul d he ar an y th in g. Offi cer Bau er to ok a po si ti on ne ar th e win do w. Bal li ng er th en ap pr oa ch ed th e win do w, m ov ed th e cu rta in to th e si de
, an d po in te d hi s
gu n at Offi cer Bau er’s he ad

. Offi cer Bau er y el le d “ Gun !,” an d th e of fic ers ret reat ed

. Id

. (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. By th is po in t, Offi cers Bau er an d Krech ha d dr awn th ei r gu ns

.

The of fic ers cal le d fo r ba ck up an d se cu red th e area . Th ey were po si ti on ed a t

a br eeze way area at th e to p o f th e st ai rs to th e se co nd flo or

. Offi cer Ofst ead an d Serg ean t Ch ris to ph er Mu rray were th e f irs t arri vi ng ba ck up of

fic ers

. Tog et he r, th e of fic ers di sc us se d t he si tu at io n a nd de ci de d t o c al l a S W AT team

.

Su dd en ly, fin di ng an op po rtu ni ty to es cap e, Mar k o p e n e d t h e do or to Ro om 21 7 an d ran do wn th e ha ll way

. Bal li ng er, th e ho st ag e ta ke r, fir ed a sh ot at Mar k. The
of fic ers he ard th is gu ns ho t, bu t th ey di d no t se e who fir ed it or whe re it la nd ed

. Mar k 3

co nt in ue d ru nn in g do wn th e ha ll way to ward t h e br eeze way , in th e di rect io n of th e of fic ers

. He was no t arm ed

. Acco rd in g to th e of fic ers , th ey or de red M a rk to st op , rel in qu is h th e weap on th ey be li ev ed he po ss es se d, an d ge t on th e gr o un d. As Mar k

The m e d i c a l ev id en ce in di cat es th at it wen t th ro ug h Mar k’s le ft hi p an d 3
tra ve le d t hr ou gh hi s b od y be fo re b eco m in g l od ge d i n h is rig ht arm

.

-3

-ne ared th em , Of fic ers Ofst ead an d Kre ch , who at t hi s p oi nt were p os it io ne d c lo se st

to Mark , fire d a t h im

bu t m is se d.

Afte r he ari ng th e sh ot s, Mar k st op pe d an d go t face do wn in th e ha ll way

. The n,

acco rd in g t o t he off

ic ers , Mark “ pu sh ed hi m se lf up wit h hi s le ft ha nd , and hi s ri gh t ha nd w a s o b s c u r e d be ne at h hi s to rs o.” Id

. at 72 7. The of fic ers co nt en d th at Mar k
rai se d up as th ey or de red hi m m ul ti pl e ti m es to sh ow hi s ha nd s an d st ay do wn. The y al so al le ge th at he li fte d hi s to rs o an d m ov ed hi s rig ht arm , whi ch ha d be en ob sc ur ed

. In te rp ret in g th is as th reat en in g, Offi cers Krech
, Bau er, an d Ofst ead fir ed a co m bi ne d
17 rou nd s, 1 2 o f whi ch st ru ck Mark . He di ed sh or tl y th erea fte r.

Tawan a br ou gh t th is § 19 83 act io n ag ai ns t th e Ci ty an d Offi cers Krech
, Bau er,

an d Ofs te ad . Th e of

fic ers were su ed in bo th th ei r in di vi du al an d o ffi ci al cap aci ti es

. The su it al le ge d th at th e of fic ers vi ol at ed Mar k’s rig ht un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t

to be free of ex ces si ve fo rce in th e co ur se of an a r r es t an d were li ab le fo r wro ng fu l
de at h un de r Mi nn . S ta t. § 57 3.0 2. It al so al le ge d vi cari ou s li ab il it y ag ai ns t th e Ci ty

un de r Mi nn es ot a st at e la w.

Fo ll owi ng di sc ov ery, th e de fen da nt s mo v e d fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. The y
arg ue d th at th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , es pe ci al l y Mar k’s pe rcei ve d no nco m pl ia nc e, crea te d a reas on ab le be li ef th at Mar k po se d a se rio us th reat , r en de rin g th ei r us e of de ad ly f

o r c e ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le an d en ti tl in g th em to qu al ifi ed
im m un it y

. Tawan a arg ue d in op po s i t io n th at th ere were m ul ti pl e ge nu in e is su es of

m at eri al fact th at , if res ol ve d in he r fav or , su pp or te d a fin di ng th at th e of fic ers act ed

un reas on ab ly.

Tawan a co nt en de d th at th e of fic ers sh ou ld ha ve kn own th at th ey were de al in g wit h a ho st ag e si tu at io n , t h a t th e di ffer en ce be twee n Mar k’s an d Bal li ng er’s sh irt

co lo rs sh ou ld h a v e mad e c l ear th at Mar k was no t th e ho st ag e ta ke r, an d th at th e of fic ers sh ot Mar k wit ho ut gi vi ng hi m en ou gh ti m e to co m pl y wit h th ei r po te nt ia ll y

-4

-co nf

lic tin g or de rs

. Cru ci al ly, Tawan a al so as se rte d th at a st at em en t th at Offi cer Krech
mad e t o th e Mi nn es ot a Bu reau of Cri m e App reh en si on (BCA) sh or tl y aft er th e in ci de nt su gg es te d t ha t t he off ic ers ha d s ho t M ark de sp it e h is co m pl ia nc e.

The BCA ha d co nd uc te d i nt erv ie ws wit h th e of fic ers on th e sc en e th e da y of
th e sh oo ti ng

. Offi cer Krech st at ed th e fo ll owi ng reg ard in g th e se c o n d
, le th al se t of
sh ot s:

[Sen io r Sp eci al Age nt Drew Eva ns ] DE[:]Okay, whe n [Ma rk ] g o e s do wn to th e gr ou nd wha t ha pp en ed uh
, he
, y o u s ai d he ki nd a wen t do wn t o a pro ne po si ti on or h e k in d a fel l d own ki nd a ne ar where you

were.

[Offi cer Kre ch ] SK[: ] Um -h m

.
DE[:] W ha t h ap pe ne d t he re?

SK[: ] He, he st op pe d.

DE[:] Okay.

SK[: ] Tol d ’em to pu t hi s ha nd s ou t, “ K e e p yo u r h a nd s ou t, ke ep y ou r ha nd s o u t , k e e p y ou r ha nd s ou t,” whi ch he di d an d um th en he di dn ’t

m ov e we to ld hi m no t to m ov e an d he di dn ’t an d we ki nd of we ha d ou r gu ns dr awn on hi m no w an d th en I th in k so m eb od y el se was , ha d so m e

co ve r un ti l we ha d hi m , ou r weap on s were di rect ed at hi m un ti l we ha d

su ffi ci en t eq ui pm en t t he re t o p ul l h im to saf et y

.

. . . DE[:] Okay, when he went do wn, were an y ad di ti on al sh ot s fi red aft er th at ?

SK[: ] I do n’t t hi nk aft er h e wen t d own um

.

-5

-DE[:] Did y ou fir e an y ad di ti on al sh ot s af

te r th at ?

SK[: ] I do n’t t hi nk so

.

Decl

. of J. Ash win Mad ia in Opp ’n to Def’s Mo t. fo r S u mm

. J

. , Ex. 60
, at 6,
Hen de rs on v. Ci ty of W

oo d b u r y , No. 0: 15 -cv -0 33 32 -RHK-FLN (D. Mi nn

. Dec. 1,
20 16 ), ECF No. 8 6- 36

.

The di st ric t co ur t di sr eg ard ed th is st at em en t an d in st ead rel ie d pr im ari ly on th e la te r st at em en ts Offi cers Krech
, Bau er, an d Ofst ead m ad e in th ei r de po si ti on s. In th ei r de po si ti on s, t he off

ic ers un ifo rm ly av erre d th at Mar k’s fai lu re t o c om pl y wit h t he ir

co m m an ds was t he cau se of th e sh oo ti ng

. The co ur t br ok e th e en co un te r do wn i nt o
two di sc ret e i n c i d e n t s : (1 ) th e ro un d of sh ot s fir ed whe n Mar k cam e ru nn in g do wn th e ha ll way , an d (2 ) th e fat al sh ot s fir ed whi le he was on th e gr ou nd

. Afte r ap pl y in g

se pa rat e ex ces si ve fo rce an al y se s to each
, th e di st ric t co ur t ru le d th at th e de fen da nt s

were en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y

.

Reg ard in g t he fir st sh oo ti ng , t he co ur t st at ed th at th e li m it ed in fo rm at io n t he
of fic ers ha d m ad e it “ reas on ab le fo r th e of fic ers to pe rcei ve Mar k as a se rio us th reat .”
Hen de rs on , 23 3 F . Sup p. 3 d a t 7 29

.

Tho ug h th e di st ric t co ur t ex pr es se d m or e dif fi cu lty in de te rm in in g th e pr op rie ty of th e se co nd ro un d of sh ot s, it ul ti m at el y co nc lu de d th at it was reas on ab le
, as well

. The co ur t ex pl ai ne d:

To be su re, th e of

fic ers ’ se co nd us e of fo rce pr es en ts a cl os er cal l. The ci rcu m st an ces in di cat e th at , whe n th e of fic ers op en ed fir e a se co nd ti m e, Mar k po se d le ss of a th reat —h e ha d be en fir ed up on , he ap pe ared
to co m pl y wit h of

fic ers ’ co m

m an ds to ge t o n t he gro un d, an d h e face d

an ad di ti on al
, arm ed of

fic er (Bau er). The re is no in di cat io n, ho w e v e r , th at th e of fic ers ha d reas on to be li ev e th ei r fir st vo ll ey of gu nf ire ha d hi t

-6

-Mar k. The re is no ev id e n c e h e sh owe d si gn s of in jury or cal le d ou t as ha vi ng be en st ru ck

. In ad di ti on , th e of fic ers te st ifi ed th at he di d no t fa ll
to th e gr ou nd bu t wen t do wn de li be ra te ly
, in di cat in g he ret ai ne d co nt ro l of hi s bo dy an d m ov em en ts

. The of fic ers or de red hi m to “ sh ow m e y ou r ha nd s,” “ pu t y ou r arm s st rai gh t up ,” an d “ st op or I’m go in g t o s h o o t .” It is un di sp ut ed th at he fa il ed to co mpl y wi th th es e co mman ds

. In st ead
, he pu sh ed hi s ch es t of

f of th e flo or wit h hi s le ft ha nd an d ap pe ared to try to ro ll on to hi s rig ht si de wit h hi s rig ht ha nd ob sc ur ed be ne at h hi s to rs o. K r e c h t e st ifi ed th at sh e co ul d no t se e hi s rig ht ha nd
, an d sh e was

wor rie d it he ld a gu n. Bau er “ rem em be r[ed ] th in ki ng he m ad e it th is far, he 's go in g to ki ll us .” Afte r Mar k fai le d to co m pl y , Krech
, Ofst e[ad ], an d Bau er fi red ad di ti on al rou nd s u nt il hi s ri gh t h an d b ecame vis ib le

.

In th e Co ur t’s vie w, th is se co nd us e of fo rce was reas on ab le . As di sc us se d a bo ve , th e of

fic ers reas on ab ly be li ev ed th at Mar k po se d a th reat whe n he ex it ed Ro om 21 7. He th en f a il ed to co m

pl y wit h ad di ti on al co m

m an ds an d m ov ed to th e in te rs ect io n of th e ba lc on y an d th e br eeze way , wh ere he was cl os er to th e o f f i c ers an d ha d el im in at ed th e co ve r th e of

fic ers pr ev io us ly en

joy ed aro un d th e co rn er fro m Ro om 21 7. The of

fic ers ’ te st im on y th at th ey co ul d n ot see Mark ’s rig ht ha nd be ne at h hi s to rs o st an ds un reb ut te d an d, as su ch
, th e Co ur t pe rcei ve s no in te rv en in g fact s fro m whi ch th e of fic ers sh ou ld ha ve co nc lu de d th e th reat ha d s ub si de d.

Id

. at 7 31 –3 2 (t hi rd em

ph as is ad de d) (ci ta ti on s an d fo ot no te om it te d)

.

Fi nd in g th e us e of fo rce reas on ab le , t he co ur t gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t on th e fed eral ex ces si ve fo rce cl ai m

. The co ur t th en rel ie d on th is co nc lu si on to su pp or t

a fin di ng th at th e de fen da nt s were en t i t l e d t o of fic ia l im m

un it y on th e st at e-l aw cl ai m s. Fo ll owi ng th e en try of jud gm en t, Tawan a ti m el y ap pe al s.

II. Dis cu ss io n

“ W e rev ie w th e d is tri ct co ur t's gra nt of su m m ary jud gm en t d e n ov o, v ie win g th e r e c o r d i n th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e no nm ov in g pa rty an d dr awin g al l

-7

-reas on ab le in fere nc es in th at pa rty’ s fav or .” Ch amb er s v. Pen ny co ok
, 64 1 F.3 d 89 8,
90 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. A m ov an t is en ti tl ed to “ su m m ary jud gm en t if
th e m ov an t sh ows th at th ere is n o ge nu in e di sp ut e as to an y m at eri al fact an d th e

m ov an t is en ti tl ed t o ju d g men t as a m at te r of la w.” Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 56 (a). “ W he n a de fen da nt as se rts qu al ifi ed im m un it y at th e su m

m ar y ju dg m en t st ag e, th e pl ai nt iff

m us t pr od uc e ev id en ce su ffi ci en t to crea te a ge nu in e is su e of fact reg ard in g whe th er th e de fen da nt vi ol at ed a cl earl y es ta bl is he d rig ht .” Bis ho p v. Gla zi er , 72 3 F.3 d 95 7,
96 1 (8 th Cir . 20 13 ) (ci ti ng Ch amb er s , 64 1 F .3d at 9 04 ).

“ Qua li fie d im m

un it y sh ie ld s go ve rn m en t of fic ia ls fro m li ab il it y an d th e bu rd en s of li ti ga ti on in a § 19 83 act io n un le ss th e of fic ia l’s co nd uc t vi ol at es a cl earl y

es ta bl is he d co ns ti tu ti on al or st at ut or y rig ht of whi ch a reas on ab le pe rs on wou ld ha ve kn own .” La Cr os s v. Ci ty of Dul ut h
, 71 3 F.3 d 11 55
, 11 57 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (ci ti ng Har lo w v. Fit

zg er al d
, 45 7 U.S. 80 0, 81 8 (1 98 2) ; Bro wn v. Ci ty of Gol de n Val le y , 57 4
F.3 d 49 1, 49 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 )). Qua li fie d im m un it y is in ap p r o p r i a t e if “ th e fact s sh own by th e pl ai nt iff m ak e ou t a vi ol at io n of a co ns ti tu ti on al or st at ut or y rig ht
, an d

. . . th at rig ht w a s c l e a r l y es ta bl is he d at th e ti m e of th e de fen da nt ’s al le ge d

m is co nd uc t.” Id

. at 1 15 8 (c it in g Sa uc ie r v. K at z , 53 3 U.S. 1 94 , 20 1 (2 00 1) ).

“ Ap p r e h e n s i on by th e us e of de ad ly fo rce is a se iz ur e su bjec t to th e

reas on ab le ne ss req ui rem en t of th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t.” Na nc e v. Sa mmis
, 58 6 F.3 d
60 4, 61 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. In de t erm in in g whe th er qu al ifi ed
im m un it y is ap pr op ria te in an ex ces si ve for ce ca se , th e

qu es ti on

. . . is whe th er a ge n u i n e q ue st io n of m at eri al fact ex is ts reg ard in g wh et he r [t he of fic ers ’] act io ns —as de fin ed by th e p la in ti ff’s

ve rs io n of th e ev en ts —wer e o b je ct iv el y reas on ab le

. Our rev ie w is de

no vo

. A sh oo ti n g i s ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le whe n th e of fic er ha s p r o b a b le cau se to be li ev e th at th e su sp ect po se s a si gn ifi can t th reat o f de at h or se rio us ph y si cal ha rm to th e of fic er or ot he rs

. Bu t th e cal cu lu s of reas o na bl en es s m

us t em bo dy al lo wan ce fo r th e fact th at po li ce

-8

-of

fic ers are of

te n fo rced to m ak e sp li t-s eco nd jud gm en ts —i n ci rcu m st an ces th at are te ns e, un cert ai n, an d rap id ly ev ol vi ng —ab ou t th e

am ou nt of fo rce th at is ne ces sa ry in a pa rti cu la r si tu at io n. And we m us t

rem em b e r n o t to in du lg e in arm ch ai r qu art erb ack in g or ex pl oi t th e be ne fit s of hi nd si gh t whe n ev al ua ti ng po li ce of fic e r s ’ us e of de ad ly fo rce.

Rib be y v. Co x , 22 2 F .3d 10 40 , 10 43 (8t h C ir. 2 00 0) (cl ean ed up ).

At or al arg um en t, co un se l fo r th e ap pe ll an t fram ed th is cas e as pr es en ti ng m or e of a “ fu nd am en t a l [ F e d e r a l] Ru le of [Ci vi l Pro ced ur e] 56 ” is su e th an of “ of fic ia l
im m un it y or q ua li fie d i m

m un it y .” W e ag ree.

By co nc lu di ng th at “ [i]t is un di sp ut ed th at [Ma rk ] f a i l e d to co m

pl y wit h [th e of fic ers ’] co m

m an ds ,” Hen de rs on , 23 3 F. Su pp

. 3d at 73 1, th e di st ric t co ur t ga ve no weig ht to Offi cer Krech ’s BCA st at em en t an d reac he d a co nc lu si on th at le av es a

cru ci al m at eri al fact un res ol ve d. Thi s qu es ti on is whe th er Mar k co m pl i e d wit h th e of fic ers ’ co m

m an ds be fo re t he y

sh ot hi m

.

The of fic ers ’ de po si tion te st im on y an d m uc h of th ei r BCA te st im on y st at es th at
Mar k ha d no t fu ll y co m

pl ie d wit h th ei r co m

m an ds

. The y as se rt th at whi le he was on th e gr ou nd
, h is ha nd s were no t vi si bl e to th em

. The y be li ev e th at th ei r ob sc ur ed
vi si on of on e hi s Mar k’s ha nd s su pp or te d a n o bjec ti ve ly reas on ab le be li ef th at he

po se d a si gn ifi can t th reat of de at h or se rio us bo di ly ha rm

. Howev er, co ns id ered in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e pl ai nt iff
, Offi cer Krech ’s BCA st at em en t su pp or ts a

co nt rary fi nd in g: th at Mar k fu ll y an d un eq ui vo cal ly s ur ren de r e d to po li ce, la y st il l,

an d was sh ot an d ki ll ed an y way

. If tru e, su ch act io n wou ld ha ve vi ol at ed Mar k’s
cl earl y es ta bl is he d co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. Se e Na nc e , 58 6 F.3 d at 61 1 (“ Exi st in g cas e la w wou ld ha ve m ad e it su ffi ci en tl y cl ear to a reas on ab le of fic er th at a su sp ect can no t be ap pr eh en de d by us e of de ad ly fo rce un le ss th at in di vi du al po se s a th reat of se rio us ph y si cal ha rm .”). The res ol ut io n of th e co nf li ct in g t es ti m on y

be twee n o ne of

fic er’s

-9

-m or e or le ss c o n t e mp or an eo us de sc rip ti on an d al l th e of fic ers ’ su bs eq ue nt un ifi ed
de po si ti on te st im on y is be st le ft to a jury. The refo re, th e di st ric t c o u r t e r r e d in

gr an ti ng qu al ifi ed im m

un it y

.

W e ha ve st at ed th at “ [d ]isp ut ed fact ua l is su es an d co nf li ct in g te st im on y sh ou ld

no t b e r e s o l v e d by th e di st ric t co ur t” at th e su m m ary jud gm en t st ag e.” W ea lo t v. Bro ok s , 86 5 F.3d 11 19
, 11 28 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (ci ti ng Co ker v. Ark. St at e Pol ic e , 73 4
F.3 d 83 8, 84 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (“ Mak in g cred i b i l i t y de te rm in at io ns or weig hi ng

ev id en ce in th is m an ne r is im pr op er at th e su m

m ary jud gm en t st ag e, an d it is no t ou r fu nc t i o n t o rem ov e th e cred ib il it y as se ss m en t fro m th e jury.”)) (o th er ci ta ti on

om it te d)

. W ha t Offi cer Kre ch m ean t in he r BCA sta te m en t and th e weig ht it sh ou ld
be gi ve n are m at te rs fo r a jury to de ci de

. Tha t fact
, on ce de te rm in ed
, wil l be m at eri al

to de te rm in in g whet he r th e of fic ers ’ us e o f de ad ly fo rce was reaso na bl e. The refo re,

we rev ers e th e d is tri ct co ur t’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t o n t he § 1 98 3 c la im

.

The di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of of fic ia l im m

un it y fo r th e st at e-l aw cl ai m s res te d

on th e co ur t’s co nc lu si on th at th e of fic ers we r e e n t i t le d to qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. Bec au se we rev ers e on th at po in t, we al so rev ers e th e gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t on Tawan a’s cl ai m s fo r wro ng fu l de at h an d vi cari ou s li ab il it y un de r Mi nn es ot a la w. Se e Cr ai gh ea d v . Lee , 39 9 F .3d 95 4, 9 63 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5)

. 4

Mi nn es ot a la w pro vi de s t ha t 4

th e de ci si on to us e de ad ly fo rce is a di sc ret io na ry de ci s i o n en ti tl in g a po li ce of fic er to of fic ia l im m un it y ab se nt a wil lfu l or m al ic io us wro ng

. Offi ci a l im m

un it y al so pr ot ect s go ve rn m en t en ti ti es fro m vi cari ou s li ab il it y fo r act io ns th at are en ti tl ed to im m un it y

. In de te rm in in g whe th er

an of fic ia l co m m it te d a wil lfu l or m al ic io us wro ng , th e co ur t co ns id ers whe th er th e of

fic ia l ha s in te nt io na ll y co m m it te d an act th at he ha d

reas on to be li ev e is pr oh ib it ed

. W he th er or no t an of fic er act ed wil lfu ll y

or m al ic io us ly is u s u a l ly a qu es ti on of fact to be res ol ve d by th e jury. The reas on in g th at le d u s t o a ffi rm th e d en ia l o f qu al ifi ed im m un it y as

-1 0-III. Co nc lu si on 5

W e rev ers e an d re m an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

to pl ai nt iff

s’ Sect io n 19 83 cl ai m s le ad s us to affi rm th e de ni al of of fic ia l im m un it y as t o t he st at e-l aw cl ai m s.

Cr ai gh ea d, 39 9 F .3d at 9 63 (ci ta ti on s o m it te d)

.
Tawan a fil ed a m ot io n to su pp le m en t th e reco rd wit h an affi da vi t of on e of th e 5 ho st ag es . W e d en y

it as m oo t.

-1 1-