CA5: Use of deadly force against an armed, dangerous, and unpredicable man was subject to QI

Officers were entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff could not establish that they used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The evidence indicated that the use of force was justified under the circumstances. Because the officers thought they were confronting an unpredictable man armed with a dangerous weapon they had probable cause to conclude that he posed a serious threat of injury or death. Also, plaintiff’s version of events was definitively contradicted by video evidence, so the district court was not required to accept it. Firing on the decedent was not objectively unreasonable because the law did not require officers in a dangerous situation to wait until the moment a suspect used a deadly weapon to act to stop him. Garza v. Briones, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 35281 (5th Cir. Nov. 25, 2019).*

Defendant filed a motion for return of property, but the federal government doesn’t have possession—it was turned over to state authorities. So, the motion must be denied. United States v. Turner, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204159 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 25, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Excessive force, Qualified immunity, Rule 41(g) / Return of property. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.