Court Opinion

ID: 9558677
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:15:16.498304+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:30.742191
License: Public Domain

HARTZ, Judge (concurring). {20} I join fully Judge Wechsler’s opinion for the Court. I write separately only to emphasize that the defendant officers attempted to justify the shooting of Mr. Archuleta solely on the ground of the threat he posed to the officers’ safety. In particular, they did not argue that deadly force may have been permissible because of the threat he posed to his wife or other members of the public. The United States Supreme Court stated in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 11-12, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), that if “there is probable cause to believe that [the suspect] has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given.” In a footnote the Court also indicated that an officer may use deadly force “to apprehend ‘perpetrators who, in the course of their crime threatened the use of deadly force, or if the officer believes there is a substantial risk that the person whose arrest is sought will cause death or serious bodily harm if his apprehension is delayed,’ ” when the officer “ ‘know[s], as a virtual certainty, that the suspect committed an offense for which the use of deadly force is permissible.’ ” Id. at 9 n. 8, 105 S.Ct. 1694 (quoting President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: The Police 189 (1967)).