CA9: Advancing on a prior victim with a knife resulted in a police shooting, and QI applied

“The district court found that no controlling precedent had clearly established that Omar’s right under the Fourth Amendment to be free from the excessive use of deadly force by police would be violated when he was shot and killed as he advanced toward an individual he had earlier that day assaulted, while carrying a drawn knife and while defying specific police orders to stop. [¶] The panel held that the Supreme Court’s decision in Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148, 1152 (2018) showed that, as of 2010, there was no clearly established law demonstrating that Officer Rutledge’s use of deadly force was unconstitutional. The panel further held that the cases cited by appellant subsequent to Kisela did not ‘squarely govern’ the facts here. Omar was advancing with a knife toward a woman whom he had reportedly just assaulted. He ignored Officer Rutledge’s repeated commands to stop and a warning that she would shoot. None of the cases plaintiff cited involved an officer acting under similar circumstances as Officer Rutledge, and therefore, plaintiff failed to show that it was clearly established that Officer Rutledge’s actions amounted to constitutionally excessive force.” (Summary by the court) Ventura v. Rutledge, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 33307 (9th Cir. Oct. 22, 2020).*