## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 33 76

__ __ __ __ __ _

Est at e o f Dav id Eug en e Mo rg an , Jr., *

*
Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt

, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e * W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

Jo hn Edwi n C oo k, Po li ce Offi cer; *

Jo hn Dego ni a, Ch ie f of

Po li ce, *
Sed al ia Mi ss ou ri P ol ic e Dep art m en t; *
Ci ty of Sed al ia

, *

*
Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 9, 2 01 2
Fi le d: Ju ly 10, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re LOKEN and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d GERR ARD, Dis tri ct Ju dg e. 1

__ __ __ __ __ _
SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Offi cer Jo hn Edwi n Co ok fat al ly sh ot Da v i d Eug en e Mo rg an , Jr

., aft er

res po nd in g to a do m es ti c di st ur ba nc e at Mo rg an ’s r es id en ce in Sed al ia

, Mi ss ou ri.

Mo rg an ’s es ta te (th e “ Est at e”) su ed Co ok pu r s u an t to 42 U.S.C. § 19 83

, al le gi ng

Co ok us ed ex ces si ve fo rce in vi ol at io n of Mo rg an ’s Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht s. Afte r

The Hon or ab le Jo hn Gerra rd

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct of 1

Neb ras ka , si tt in g b y

de si gn at io n.th e co m

pl et io n of di sc ov ery, th e di st ric t cou rt gr an te d Coo k’s m ot io n for su m m ary 2
jud gm en t, fin di ng Co ok was en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y be cau se hi s act io ns were
ob jecti ve ly reaso na bl e. The Es ta te no w app eal s. We affir m

.

I. Back gr ou nd

On Ju ne 30

, 20 07

, Sed al ia Po li ce Offi cers Jo hn Co ok an d Jo hn Co m fo rt were
di sp at ch ed se pa rat el y in res po ns e to a rep or t of a do m es ti c di st ur ba nc e at Mo rg an ’s

res id en ce. Co ok arri ve d at Mo rg an ’s h o u s e f irs t an d ap pr oa ch ed th e res id en ce on

fo ot

. Co ok ob se rv ed Mo rg an , who was al on e on th e fro nt po rch

, walk in g to ward

so m e ch ai rs on th e rig ht si de of th e po rch

. Mo rg an st um bl ed ov er on e ch ai r an d fel l

in to a recl in er. Co ok be li ev ed th a t M o r g a n was in to xi cat ed ba se d on Mo rg an ’s

ob se rv ed be ha vi or as well as Co ok ’s pr ev io us hi st or y of de al in g wit h Mo rg an

. Co ok

en te red th e fen ced -in y ard of th e ho us e, st op pi ng si x to twel ve feet fro m th e po rch

, whi ch ha d n o ra il in g a nd was e le va te d a pp ro xi m at el y on e fo ot off

th e g ro un d.

Afte r Co ok st op pe d in fro nt of th e po rch

, Ang el in e Ja ck so n cam e ou t th e fro nt

do or of th e ho us e. Ja ck so n, who was Mo rg an ’s gi rlf rie nd an d als o a res id en t o f th e
ho us e, to ld Co ok th at Mo rg an ha d a kn ife

. Co ok ob se rv ed Mo rg an at te m pt in g t o

co nc eal a ki tc he n- type kn ife in hi s ri gh t h an d. Co ok dre w hi s g un an d p oi nt ed it at

M o rg an

. Co ok to ld Ja ck so n to go ba ck in to th e ho us e, an d Ja ck so n di d s o

. C o o k

twi ce or de red Mo rg an t o d r op th e kn ife

. Mo rg an st oo d up , wit h th e kn ife po in te d

do wnwar d an d hi s arm at hi s si de

. Mo rg an th en rai se d hi s rig ht le g as if to ta ke a st ep

in Co ok ’s di rect io n. Co ok fi r e d o n e sh ot th at hi t Mo rg an in th e ch es t. Mo rg an

su bs eq ue nt ly die d.

The Hon or ab le Nan et te K. Lau gh rey, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e f o r th e 2

W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-The Est at e fil ed th is act io n in st at e co ur t al le gi ng O ffi cer Co ok vi ol at ed

Mo rg an ’s rig ht to be free fro m ex ces si ve f o r c e

. The cas e was rem ov ed to fed eral

co ur t. W he n Co ok m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t on th e ba si s of qu al ifi ed im m un it y , th e di st ric t co ur t fir st de ni ed th e m ot io n, fin di ng th at “ [t]he fact s sh ow th at a

reas on ab le of

fic er in Co ok ’s po si ti on wou ld no t ha ve us ed de ad ly fo rce be cau se th ere

was no pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e th at Mo rg an po se d a si gn if i c an t an d im m ed ia te

th reat of de at h o r s e r i o u s ph y si cal in jury to th e of

fic er.” (Dis t. Ct

. Ord er, Aug

. 3,

20 11

, at 8.) The di st ric t co ur t ba se d th is co nc lu si on on it s fin di ng th at “ Mo rg an di d

no t ad va nc e to ward s C oo k, n or di d h e rai se th e k ni fe.” (Id .)

Afte r Offi cer Co ok fil ed a mo t io n fo r reco ns id erat io n, th e di st ric t co ur t

ch an ge d co ur se an d gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of Co ok

, fin di ng Co ok was

en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m

un it y

. In do in g so , th e di st ric t co ur t no te d it ha d ov erl oo ke d

th e Est a t e ’s ad m is si on th at “ [a]fter st an di ng up , Mo rg an m ov ed in th e di rect io n of

Offi cer Co ok .” (Dis t. Ct

. Ord er, Sep t. 30

, 20 11

, at 2 & n.1

, 2.) The co ur t co nc lu de d

a reas on ab le of

fic er wou ld ha ve ha d pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e Mo rg an po se d a th reat

of se rio us , ph ys i c al ha rm to ei th er Co ok or Ja ck so n, an d th us it was no t

co ns ti tu ti on al ly unr eas on ab le for Co ok to pr ot ect hi m se lf an d Ja ck so n by firi ng hi s

weap on at M or ga n. (Id . at 4 .)

II. Ana lysis

The Est at e arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in gr an ti ng Offi cer Co ok ’s m ot io n fo r

su m m ary jud gm en t ba se d on qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t

of su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo , Mo or e v. In de ha r, 51 4 F.3 d 75 6, 75 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ),

an d we wi l l a f

f i r m i f “ th ere is no 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 e nt it le d t o ju dg m en t as a m at te r of law.” Fe d. R. C iv

. P. 56 (a). “ [A]t th e

su m m ary jud gm en t st ag e, th e no nm ov in g pa rty is gi ve n th e be ne fit of al l reas on ab le

in fere nc es .” W hi te v. Mc Kin le y , 51 9 F .3d 80 6, 8 13 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8)

.

-3

-“ Qua li fie d im m un it y sh ie ld s go ve rn men t o f f i ci al s fro m li ab il it y in a § 19 83

act io n un le ss th e of

fic ia l’s co nd uc t v i 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 .” Bro wn v. Ci ty of

Gol de n Vall ey , 57 4 F.3 d 49 1, 49 5 (8 th Ci r

. 20 09 ). Eva lu at in g a cl ai m of qu al ifi ed

immun it y req ui res a “ two -s te p in qu iry: (1 ) whe th er th e fact s sh own by t he 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 (2 ) whe th er th at rig ht

was cl earl 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 49 6.

Co ok ’s sh oo ti ng of Mo rg an co ns ti tu te d a se iz ur e un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t, se e

Co le v. Bo ne , 99 3 F.2 d 13 28

, 13 32 -3 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ); t h u s , o ur in it ia l in qu iry is

whe th er th e sh oo ti ng am ou nt ed to a Fo ur th A mend m en t vi ol at io n. In m ak in g th at

de te rm in at io n, we e x am in e whe th er Co ok ’s act io ns were “ ‘objec ti ve ly reas on ab le ’

in li gh t of th e fact s an d ci rcu m st an ces co nf ro nt in g [Co ok ], wit ho ut reg ard to [Co ok ’s]

un de rlyin g in te nt or m ot iv at io n.” Nan ce v. S a mm i s , 58 6 F.3 d 60 4, 61 0 (8 th Ci r.

20 09 ) (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. “ The reas on ab le ne ss of an of f i c e r ’s us e of fo rce is

ev al ua te d by lo ok in g at th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , in cl ud in g ‘the se ve rit y of th e
cri m e at is su e, whe th e r t h e su sp ect po se s an im m ed ia te th reat to th e sa fet y of th e

of fic ers or ot he rs , a nd whe th er he is act iv el y res is ti ng arre st or at te m pt in g to ev ad e by fl ig ht .’ ” Id

. a t 61 0 (q uo ti ng Bro wn, 57 4 F.3 d at 49 6)

. “ The us e of de ad ly fo rce
is no t co ns ti tu ti on al ly unr eas on ab le if a n o ffi cer h as ‘pro ba bl e cau se to be li ev e th at

th e su sp ect po se s a th reat of se rio us ph y si cal ha rm , ei th er to th e of fic er or ot he rs .’ ”

Id . (qu ot in g M oo re, 5 14 F.3d at 7 62 ).

The pe rti ne nt is su e o n a pp eal is whet he r Offi cer Co ok ha d pr ob ab le cau se to

be li ev e th at Mo rg an po se d an im m ed ia te th reat of se rio us ph y si cal ha rm to Co ok or

to Jac ks on

.

The Est at e arg ue s th e d is tri ct co ur t er red in it s an al y si s. The Est at e co nt en ds

th e “ [m ]ere[] li fti ng of on e’s fo ot of f th e gr ou nd be gi nn in g to ta ke a st ep can no t an d

sh ou ld no t be vi ewed as crea ti ng an im m ed ia te th reat to Co ok .” The Est at e co nc ed es

th at de ad ly fo rce “ co ul d be fo un d

. . . r e a s o n a b l e if Co ok ’s as se rti on th at Mo rg an

-4

-lu ng ed at hi m was cred ib le ,” bu t t he Est at e po in ts ou t th at no ey ewit ne ss ot he r th an

Co ok su pp or ts th e ch arac te riz at io n t ha t M or ga n l un ge d t owa rd Co ok

.

The Est at e’s arg um en t th at a ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact pr ecl ud es su m m ary ju d gm en t is m is pl aced

. The di st ric t co ur t vi ewed th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t mo s t

fav or ab le to th e Est at e, ag reei ng th e ev id en ce sh owe d th at Mo rg an li fte d hi s fo ot as

if to ta ke a st ep in th e g en eral di rect io n o f Offi cer C oo k, n ot th at Mo rg an lu ng ed at

Co ok

. Giv en th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , ho wev er, th e co ur t di d no t err in

co nc lu di ng th at Co ok ha d pr ob ab le cau s e t o b e l i e ve th at Mo rg an po se d a th reat of

im m in en t, su bs ta nt ia l bo di ly in jury to Co ok

. At th e ti m e of th e sh oo ti ng , Mo rg an was
ho ld in g a kn ife in hi s h an d a nd ap pe ared to be trying to co nc eal it fro m Co ok

. The

di st an ce se pa rat in g Co ok an d Mo r g a n w a s mini m al

, to ta li ng twel ve feet at m os t.

W he n Co ok or de red Mo rg an to dr op th e kn ife

, Mo rg an f a i l e d to co m

pl y

. In st ead

Mo rg an st oo d up an d m ov ed to ward Co ok . Coo k fi red on ly one sh ot

. Giv en al l of

th es e fact s, we fin d th at Co ok ’s act of sh oo ti ng Mo rg an was ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le

.

The Est at e arg ue s Offi cer Co ok ’s us e of de ad ly fo rce was un warra nt ed be cau se

Co ok ha d no n- le th al al te rn at iv es at hi s di sp os al

, in cl ud i n g : w a i ti ng fo r Offi cer

Co m fo rt to arri ve ; warn in g Mo rg an de ad ly fo rce wou ld be us ed if Mo rg an cam e an y
cl os er; us in g hi s ba to n to di sa rm Mo rg an or to ke ep hi m se at ed ; us in g pe pp er sp ray;

or ret reat in g to a po si ti on ou ts id e th e fen ce to awai t th e arri va l of ba ck up

. Bu t ou r

co ur t ha s de cl in ed to se co nd -g ue ss whe th er al te rn at iv e act io ns by po li ce of fic ers

“ m ig ht co nc ei va bl y ha ve be en av ai la bl e.” See C o l e , 99 3 F.2 d at 13 34

. “ The

Co ns ti tu ti on

. . . req ui res on ly th at th e se iz ur e be ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le

, no t th at th e

of fic er pu rs ue th e m os t pr ud en t c o u r se of co nd uc t as jud ge d by 20 /2 0 hi nd si gh t

vi si on .” Id . “ It m ay

ap pe ar, i n t he cal m

aft erm at h, t ha t an off

ic er co ul d h av e ta ke n

a di f f e r e n t co ur se , bu t we do no t ho ld th e po li ce to su ch a de m an di ng st an da rd .”

Gard ne r v. B ue rg er, 8 2 F .3d 24 8, 2 51 (8t h C ir. 1 99 6)

.

-5

-The Est at e is co rrec t th at

, wh e r e i t i s feas ib le

, a po li ce of fic er sh ou ld gi ve a

warn in g th at de ad ly fo rce is go in g to be us ed

. See Ten ne ss ee v. Garn er, 47 1 U.S. 1,

11 -1 2 (1 98 5)

. Bu t Offi cer Co ok di d no t m erel y st an d si le nt be fo re sh oo ti ng

. To th e

co nt rary, th e Est at e co nc ed es th at aft er Co ok dr ew hi s pi st ol

, he “ po in te d it at Mo rg an [an d or de red ] Mo rg a n t o d r o p t he kn ife an y whe re fro m 2 to 15 ti m es .” Mo rg an
sh ou ld ha ve be en on no ti ce fro m Co ok ’s rai si ng th e gu n an d or de rin g Mo rg an to pu t

th e kn ife do wn th at Mo rg an ’s es cal at io n of th e si tu at io n wou ld res ul t in th e us e of th e

fir earm

. Fu rth erm or e, be cau se Co ok was on ly si x to twel ve feet away fro m Mo rg an
whe n M or ga n m ov ed to ward Co ok

, Co ok di d no t hav e ti m e to ut te r a m or e sp eci fic

warn in g (“ St op , or I’ll sh oo t.”) be fo re fi rin g.

The Est at e al so hi nt s th at Offi cer Co ok s h o u l d ha ve ev al ua te d Mo rg an ’s

act io ns in a sl ig ht ly di ffer en t li gh t gi ve n Mo rg an ’s hi gh le ve l of in to xi cat io n. Bu t

Mo rg an ’s in to xi cat io n do es no t al te r ou r fin di ng th at Co ok ’s us e of de ad ly fo rce was
ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le

. Cf. Hay ek v. Ci ty of St

. Pau l, 48 8 F.3 d 10 49

, 10 55 (8 th Ci r.

20 07 ) (“ Eve n if W il li am were m en ta ll y il l, an d th e of fic ers kn ew it

, W il li am ’s m en ta l

st at e d oe s n ot ch an ge th e fac t t ha t h e p os ed a de ad ly thre at to th e o ffi cers .”).

III. Co nc lu si on

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in it s co nc lu si on th at Offi cer Co ok ’s act io ns were
ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le an d th eref or e di d no t vi ol at e Mo rg an ’s Fo u r t h A mend m en t rig ht s. Co ok was e nt it le d t o q ua li fie d i m m un it y . W e aff

irm.



## __________________________

-6

-