Opinion ID: 2811193
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Severity of Crime

Text: The district court determined that any crime the officers were investigating was not particularly serious, given that Ms. Dalton had advised Deputy Hill that Mr. King had not harmed her and that Deputy Hill testified he did not think there would be an arrest when the officers drove up to the house. Deputy Hill emphasizes Mr. King’s history of violent behavior; that he had broken a water line and was trying to hurt a horse, and his agitated, uncooperative; and threatening behavior after officers arrived. He also notes that Mr. King was later convicted of “Threatening a Violent Act” for his conduct during the shooting incident. These facts, however, do not show the officers were investigating a serious crime. Deputy Hill was advised of Mr. King’s violent behavior at the house and still did not initially plan to arrest him. Also, Mr. King’s subsequent conviction was for a misdemeanor, to which he pleaded “no contest” and received a suspended sentence. Aplt. App., Vol. I at 222.4 Seriousness of Threat Deputy Hill emphasizes that the seriousness of the threat must be evaluated from his perspective as a reasonable police officer rather than from the perspective of 4 The district court did not mention Mr. King’s conviction in its statement of the facts. Under an approach that strictly avoids departing from the facts the district court found, we would not consider it, either. But because the conviction is undisputed, and could therefore be considered part of either party’s version of the facts, we mention it here to show that it does not affect the outcome. -9- witnesses on the scene or from facts discerned in hindsight. Although the district court cited perceptions and actions of non-police witnesses, it correctly evaluated the seriousness of the threat from the perspective of a reasonable officer in Deputy Hill’s circumstances. A reasonable officer would not have shot Mr. King unless he had a reasonable belief that Mr. King posed an immediate threat justifying the use of deadly force. Deputy Hill’s justification for shooting Mr. King was that he reasonably believed Mr. King was armed with a long gun, which, it turned out, he was not.5 The facts, considered in the light most favorable to Mr. King, and reasonable inferences therefrom, do not support Deputy Hill’s justification. Aplt. App., Vol. 2 at 570-71 (“The evidence and reasonable inferences, when viewed in favor of [Mr.] King, would establish that . . . [he] was unarmed at the time of [the] shooting; both of his hands were visible; [and] he could not have been holding a long gun”); see Walker v. City of Orem, 451 F.3d 1139, 1160-61 (10th Cir. 2006) (rejecting officers’ contentions that they reasonably believed suspect was armed before shooting him, and affirming denial of qualified immunity to officers). 5 In his brief, Deputy Hill repeatedly states or implies that Mr. King was armed during the incident. See, e.g., Aplt. Opening Br. at 47 (“[T]he [district court] erred in its acceptance of the unsupported fact that King was unarmed at the time of the incident.”). But the record unequivocally supports the district court’s statement that he was unarmed. See, e.g., Deputy Hill’s Statement of Uncontroverted Facts, ¶ 49, Aplt. App., Vol. I at 43 (“No weapon was found in Plaintiff’s possession.”). - 10 - Deputy Hill contends various facts show that Mr. King posed an immediate threat to the officers. See Aplt. Opening Br. at 34-35. But he presents these facts in the light most favorable to himself. He ignores many facts and inferences favorable to Mr. King, the non-movant. Supreme Court precedent forbids this approach on summary judgment motions, including those involving qualified immunity. See Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861, 1866-68 (2014). The district court cited particular facts showing the lack of an immediate threat, including that “the officers were informed that . . . there were no known weapons in the house; King was unarmed at the time of shooting; both of his hands were visible; he could not have been holding a long gun; and any threats King made about black powder in the house did not pose any immediate threat to the deputies” because of their distance from him and from the house. Aplt. App., Vol. II at 570-71. Deputy Hill disputes many of these facts, but such factual disputes are not before us because, as explained above, our interlocutory jurisdiction extends only to questions of law. The district court noted that in assessing a threat that a suspect poses to police officers, courts consider such factors as “(1) whether the officers ordered the suspect to drop his weapon, and the suspect’s compliance with police commands; (2) whether any hostile motions were made with the weapon towards the officers; (3) the distance separating the officers and the suspect; and (4) the manifest intentions of the suspect.” Estate of Larsen ex rel. Sturdivan v. Murr, 511 F.3d 1255, 1260 (10th Cir. - 11 - 2008). Although Mr. King had no weapon, the district court evaluated these factors in light of Deputy Hill’s belief that he did. A reasonable jury could find in light of these factors that Mr. King did not pose an immediate threat to the officers or others. As noted above, the evidence considered in the light most favorable to Mr. King does not support Deputy Hill’s justification for the use of deadly force—that he reasonably believed Mr. King was armed with a long gun. Mr. King could not have dropped a weapon he did not have. At least one witness said that Mr. King raised his hands in a non-threatening manner in response to police commands, and at the time he was shot Mr. King was not making any threatening motions towards the officers. The officers were between 25 and 75 yards away from Mr. King, which “would certainly impact the reasonableness of any perceived threat from an unarmed man.” Aplt. App., Vol. II at 570. Finally, the manifestation of Mr. King’s intentions, as expressed by his verbal threats, must be considered in light of the likelihood that he was unable, as an unarmed suspect standing at a significant distance from the officers, to harm them or others.