Facts
(If you are new to 1983 actions, click here for help)
On September 3, 2021, at approximately 2:06 AM, Officer Jonathan Granado, on duty in his marked police vehicle, heard fellow Lake Worth Police Department (LWPD) Officer R. Watson report over the police radio that he was engaged in a high-speed pursuit of a white Volkswagen Jetta whose driver failed to yield to a traffic stop for speeding. Officer Granado responded by joining the pursuit as a backup unit. At Officer Watson’s request, LWPD dispatch ran the suspect vehicle’s license plate and informed both officers that the fleeing vehicle was “not stolen” but that it previously evaded pursuit by a different police agency and that the “occupants are considered armed and dangerous.” Importantly, however, and contrary to Officer Granado’s later assertions, the transcripts of the dispatch and radio communications contain no indication that either officer received information suggesting that the vehicle or its occupants were involved in any “drive-by shootings.”
At 2:18 AM, Officer Granado located the ongoing pursuit and began following Officer Watson as the secondary chase unit. A few minutes later, the suspect vehicle made a sharp turn, struck a curb, and sustained significant damage. The suspect vehicle continued on for a short distance before coming to a stop at 2:22 AM. Officer Watson stopped his patrol car near the disabled vehicle. When the suspect vehicle came to a stop, four unidentified individuals (including Estevian Ramirez) exited and fled in different directions.
Officer Watson, who had also exited his patrol car, observed Ramirez emerging from the rear-left passenger door of the suspect vehicle. As Ramirez emerged from the vehicle, he held a handgun in his left hand and a cell phone in his right, though it is disputed when law enforcement learned that fact. After taking only a few steps, Ramirez dropped the cell phone and briefly paused to retrieve it. Officer Watson saw Ramirez “trying to flee” but “did not see a gun” at that point.
The following events unfolded over the span of approximately eight seconds. As Officer Watson approached Ramirez from the opposite side of his police cruiser, he “touched” or “grabbed” Ramirez and, for the first time, saw that Ramirez was holding a handgun “in a downward motion.” Upon observing the handgun, Officer Watson “pushed off of” or “backed away” from Ramirez to create distance as he attempted to unholster his own weapon. At the same time, Officer Granado stopped his patrol car to the right of Officer Watson’s, exited it while drawing his service weapon, and shouted “he’s got a gun, he’s got a gun!” Officer Granado fired a single shot in the direction of Officer Watson and Ramirez—a shot that Officer Watson later recalled passed “right by him.” Ramirez then “ran away” from Officer Watson “in a southwest direction” and “continued to flee away from him across the street” and into a nearby intersection.
The officers’ accounts diverge as to what happened next. Officer Granado later claimed that Ramirez “was swinging his pistol in the direction of Officer Watson and him” as he fled. Officer Watson, however, stated that “Ramirez never pointed the gun toward me or while he was running away.” As Ramirez continued to flee from the officers, Officer Granado fired his service weapon at Ramirez six more times without warning. Four of his bullets struck the back of Ramirez’s head and shoulders. Ramirez collapsed face-first on the street in the direction he had been running. Officer Watson, who had attempted to unholster his weapon, never “cleared leather” before the gunfire ended. Seconds later, Officer Granado asked Officer Watson, “did he have a gun?” Ramirez died at the scene.
Juanita Ramirez brought an excessive-force claim against Officer Granado under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Officer Granado moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The district court granted Officer Granado’s motion, concluding his use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances and, as a result, he was entitled to qualified immunity. The 5th reversed.
Analysis
Officer Granado asserts that, when he stopped his police cruiser, he “saw that [Ramirez] had a pistol in his hand,” and “believed [Ramirez] was going to shoot and kill Officer Watson and [him].” It is undisputed Officer Granado observed Ramirez move toward Officer Watson, who briefly made physical contact with Ramirez in what Officer Watson later described as a fleeting altercation. But this speaks to the first unsuccessful shot Officer Granado fired in the direction of Ramirez. Officer Granado admits that, after this first shot, he “stopped firing so as not to hit Officer Watson [who] was momentarily between me and [Ramirez].”
The issue here, then, is whether a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether Ramirez continued to pose an immediate threat to the officers or others when Officer Granado fired six more rounds as Ramirez ran away down the street without warning. After all, an exercise of force that is reasonable at one moment can become unreasonable in the next if the justification for the use of force has ceased. Although Officer Granado does not dispute that Ramirez was fleeing at the time of the subsequent shots, he seeks to justify his continued use of deadly force by claiming that Ramirez “was swinging his pistol in the direction of Officer Watson and [him]” as he ran.
That justification turns on two disputed material facts: (1) whether Officer Granado perceived that Ramirez was armed with a handgun, and (2) whether Ramirez, while fleeing, swung that handgun in the officers’ direction. As to the first, Officer Granado was generally aware that police dispatch had advised that the suspects in the vehicle should be considered “armed and dangerous.” And as Officer Granado exited his patrol car “with adrenaline pumping, lights flashing, confusion of the scene, the fog of danger, and fog of night,” he claims that he “saw that [Ramirez] had a pistol in his hand,” prompting him to shout: “he’s got a gun, he’s got a gun!” Officer Watson—who was standing next to Ramirez—first noticed Ramirez holding a handgun at that same moment. Yet, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Officer Granado’s own words immediately after the shooting cast doubt on his asserted perception. Moments after firing the fatal shots, he turned to Officer Watson and asked: “did he have a gun?” A reasonable jury could find that this contemporaneous question sufficiently disputes Officer Granado’s claim that he saw Ramirez armed before and during the shooting.
Next, contradictory evidence undermines Officer Granado’s claim that Ramirez threatened the officers or swung anything in their direction as he fled. First, Officer Granado’s own body-camera footage does not depict Ramirez “swinging his pistol in the direction” of either officer. Second, Officer Watson, who was closest to Ramirez, unequivocally stated that “Ramirez never pointed the gun toward me or while he was running away.” Third, the findings of Ramirez’s autopsy are inconsistent with Officer Granado’s account. The medical examiner concluded that each of the four bullets that struck Ramirez—including the fatal shot to the back of his head— traveled through his body from “back to front.” The trajectories of these bullets contradict the claim that Ramirez turned his torso, head, or weapon toward the officers as he fled.
In response, Officer Granado relies on the general principle that an officer need not wait “until a defendant turns towards them, with weapon in hand, before applying deadly force to ensure their safety. But this principle applies to cases in which a suspect reaches into areas where a gun could be hidden out of an officer’s line of sight or makes other types of furtive gestures such as suddenly reaching into their waistband. Here, Officer Granado never lost sight of Ramirez as he fled, and it is firmly disputed whether Ramirez made any threatening gestures that reasonably evince a risk to officers or others, or that Officer Granado knew Ramirez was armed at all.
Plaintiff and Officer Granado offer genuinely conflicting narratives as to what occurred and what was perceived on the night of September 3, 2021. The accuracy of these competing narratives is precisely the kind of question that cannot be resolved at summary judgment.
The remaining issue is whether Plaintiff’s version of the disputed facts constitutes a violation of clearly established law. It has long been clearly established that, absent any other justification for the use of force, it is unreasonable for a police officer to use deadly force against a fleeing felon who does not pose a sufficient threat of harm to the officer or others. Under Plaintiff’s version of the disputed facts, Officer Granado did not know Ramirez was armed, observed Ramirez flee from the officers with his back turned, and never saw Ramirez turn toward the officers during his flight. His use of deadly force in this context violates the Fourth Amendment under clearly established law.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/24/24-10755.0.pdf