Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1668_19m2.pdf
Page Number: 2

2 

CITY OF TAHLEQUAH v. BOND 

Per Curiam 

workbench.  Officer Girdner followed, the others close be-
hind.  No officer was within six feet of Rollice.  The video is 
silent,  but  the  officers  stated  that  they  ordered  Rollice  to 
stop.  Rollice  kept  walking.    He  then  grabbed  a  hammer
from the back wall over the workbench and turned around 
to face the officers.  Rollice grasped the handle of the ham-
mer  with  both  hands,  as  if  preparing  to  swing  a  baseball 
bat, and pulled it up to shoulder level.  The officers backed 
up, drawing their guns.  At this point the video is no longer
silent,  and  the  officers  can  be  heard  yelling  at  Rollice  to 
drop the hammer.

He did not.  Instead, Rollice took a few steps to his right, 
coming out from behind a piece of furniture so that he had 
an  unobstructed  path  to  Officer  Girdner.    He  then  raised 
the hammer higher back behind his head and took a stance 
as  if  he  was  about  to  throw  the  hammer  or  charge  at  the 
officers.  In response, Officers Girdner and Vick fired their 
weapons, killing Rollice.

Rollice’s estate filed suit against, among others, Officers
Girdner and Vick, alleging that the officers were liable un-
der 42 U. S. C. §1983, for violating Rollice’s Fourth Amend-
ment  right  to  be  free  from  excessive  force.  The  officers 
moved for summary judgment, both on the merits and on 
qualified  immunity  grounds.    The  District  Court  granted 
their  motion.  Burke  v.  Tahlequah,  2019  WL  4674316,  *6 
(ED  Okla.,  Sept.  25,  2019).    The  officers’  use  of  force  was 
reasonable, it concluded, and even if not, qualified immun-
ity prevented the case from going further.  Ibid. 

A panel of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit re-
versed.  981 F. 3d, at 826.  The Court began by explaining 
that Tenth Circuit precedent allows an officer to be held li-
able for a shooting that is itself objectively reasonable if the 
officer’s  reckless  or  deliberate  conduct  created  a  situation 
requiring deadly force.  Id., at 816.  Applying that rule, the
Court concluded that a jury could find that Officer Girdner’s