Facts
(If you are new to 1983 actions, click here for help)
Demarious Davis drove a Maserati SUV with Isaiah Hutchinson as one of his passengers in the early hours of March 17, 2019, when a Monte Carlo rear-ended them. The City’s High Activity Location Observer (HALO) camera network captured what happened next: Davis pulled over and the Monte Carlo parked behind him. Davis and Isaiah got out and walked up to the Monte Carlo, and it appears that Davis then punched the driver through an open window at least twice. The driver shot at the pair in response, and they then retreated to the Maserati.
Nearby Austin Police Department Officers working crowd control for South by Southwest heard the shots and came running. At the same time, Isaiah made his way to the Maserati’s passenger side, produced a handgun, and fired it at least once at the approaching officers. Officers returned fire as Isaiah dove into the car and the passengers fled. Police found the Maserati later that day, abandoned. In the back was Isaiah, dead from gunshot wounds.
Family members filed suit against the officers under § 1983 for violations of Isaiah’s civil rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. They also filed a § 1983 claim against the City for alleged failures to train and discipline police officers. The District Court granted summary judgment, finding that there was no genuine dispute of material fact that no constitutional violation occurred. The 5th affirmed.
Analysis
A. Officers entitled to qualified immunity
Family members contend three genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment: (1) whether it was indeed Isaiah who shot at the police, (2) whether Isaiah possessed or fired a gun, and (3) whether officers continued to fire at the Maserati as it fled the scene. We disagree.
First, they argue that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to who exactly shot at the police. But our independent review of the record comports with the District Court’s thorough analysis. HALO footage shows that the passenger, Isaiah, was the individual who fired at the police, and we view factual allegations arising out of events recorded on video in the light depicted by the videotape. So no genuine dispute of material fact exists concerning the shooter’s identity—Isaiah Hutchinson.
Second, they argue that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Isaiah possessed or fired a gun. This is untenable. HALO footage makes clear that Isaiah possessed and aimed a gun at the officers, or at bare minimum an object that would appear to be a gun from a reasonable officer’s perspective. The footage also shows a muzzle flash emitting from the object (again, almost assuredly a gun) in Isaiah’s hand. A reasonable officer in the officer’s position would thus be justified in believing that Isaiah pointed and fired a gun at them. Officers use lethal force justifiably if they reasonably believe the individual is reaching for a gun, and we have adhered to this standard even in cases when officers had not yet seen a gun when they fired, or when no gun was ever found at the scene. See Cloud. Plaintiff’s theory fails to provide adequate deference to the officers’ snap judgment, in the heat of a perilous and rapidly evolving situation, about the danger Isaiah posed. No genuine dispute of material fact exists concerning whether Isaiah possessed or fired a gun.
Third, they argue that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the officers kept firing at the Maserati as it fled. While this is a closer call than the above two issues, our independent review again comports with the District Court’s analysis. HALO footage is rather unclear as to when, exactly, the officers ceased fire. As the Maserati began pulling away, officers still had their weapons drawn and aimed. About one second later, one officer falls backward and the footage shifts focus to the Maserati with the officers no longer in frame. Officers no longer had weapons pointed at the fleeing Maserati when the footage shifted back to them about four seconds later. Uncontroverted evidence confirms that, at the very latest, officers ceased fire when the Maserati reached the frontage road and escaped. If the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape. Moreover, if police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended.
Given the tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving situation during the officers’ twenty-second encounter with Isaiah described above, we do not believe their continuing to fire until the Maserati reached the frontage road was clearly unreasonable. Isaiah was armed, shot at the officers, then fled the scene while still armed. That officers briefly continued firing at an armed assailant who had just shot at them while fleeing does not present a constitutional violation.
There is no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the officers violated Isaiah’s constitutional rights. They did not, so they are entitled to qualified immunity. We AFFIRM.
B. City not liable
The City qualifies as a person to whom § 1983 applies. But it cannot be held liable when its employees did not violate the Constitution. There is no underlying constitutional violation by the officers to support Monell liability against the City for the reasons discussed above, so we AFFIRM.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/23/23-50471.0.pdf