Court Opinion

ID: 9477890
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:34:19.10813+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:06.931531
License: Public Domain

LUMBARD, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I am in substantial agreement with the court’s opinion.
Officer Little’s actions were clearly unreasonable in light of the standards for the apprehension of fleeing suspects existing in 1981.
In my view, the Supreme Court’s decision in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), simply crys-talized the state of the law governing the use of deadly force by a police officer to apprehend a fleeing suspect as it existed in 1985. The standard articulated in Garner did not represent a clear break with the past. Consequently, I see no question of retroactivity and would apply its standard to this case. Under Garner, a police officer cannot use deadly force against an apparently unarmed fleeing suspect when the police officer does not have probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Id. at 11, 105 S.Ct. at 1701.
In this case, I believe that it is clear from the record that officer Little acted unreasonably in shooting at Davis eight times. Officer Little admitted that he had no reason to believe that Davis was armed or that *612Davis posed a threat of using deadly force on him, his partner or third parties.
I agree with the court that the record fully supports the district court’s award of damages.