Qualified Immunity and the Use of Deadly Force

Absent a showing that police officers were on notice that deadly force used was clearly established by prior case law to be a Fourth Amendment violation, officers are entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability.

Qualified Immunity in a Fourth Amendment Use-of-Deadly-Force Case:  In a companion case to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna (Oct. 18, 2021) __ U.S.__ [__ S.Ct. __; __ L.Ed.2nd __; 2021 U.S. LEXIS 5311] (previously briefed), the High Court reversed where it was held by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeal (Oklahoma)—when the officers involved were sued by the decedent’s estate—that the officers who shot and killed a hammer-wielding, intoxicated suspect, were not entitled to qualified immunity.  In reversing the 10th Circuit, the Supreme Court first noted that an officer in any use-of-force (i.e., Fourth Amendment) case is entitled to qualified immunity when civilly sued, “unless it can be shown that the officer violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”  (E.g., see Ashcroft v. al-Kidd (2011) 563 U.S. 731, 735.)  In this new case, the Court held that it was unnecessary to decide whether the police officers involved did in fact violate the Fourth Amendment, or whether they recklessly created a situation that required deadly force.  (It was alleged that by stepping towards the decedent and cornering him in the garage, the officers “recklessly” caused him to react by grabbing the hammer.)  On this record, the officers plainly did not violate any “clearly established law.” The officers engaged ....

© 2026 Legal Updates, LLC.
This content is protected by copyright law. Republishing or redistribution in any form without written permission is strictly prohibited. For licensing or reprint requests, contact support@legalupdates.com.