From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Slattery v. Rizzo

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Jul 25, 1991
939 F.2d 213 (4th Cir. 1991)

Summary

holding that the shooting of an individual, suspected of narcotics trafficking, was objectively reasonable when the suspect ignored commands to raise his hands and turned in the officers' direction with his hand partially closed around an object

Summary of this case from Wilson v. Prince George's Cnty.

Opinion

No. 91-6271.

Argued June 5, 1991.

Decided July 25, 1991.

Eva Dillard McSlarrow, Asst. Co. Atty., argued (David T. Stitt, Co. Atty., Robert Lyndon Howell, Deputy Co. Atty., on brief), Fairfax, Va., for defendant-appellant.

Blair Duncan Howard, argued (John F. Leino, on brief), Howard, Leino Howard, P.C., Alexandria, Va., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Before POWELL, Associate Justice (Retired), United States Supreme Court, sitting by designation, and WILKINSON and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.


OPINION


This is an appeal from an interlocutory order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denying a police officer qualified immunity in an excessive use of force claim filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The critical issue presented in this case is whether under the undisputed facts a reasonable police officer could have had probable cause to believe that the appellee posed an immediate and deadly threat. We believe that under these facts such probable cause could have existed. We therefore reverse the decision below, and remand for the district court to enter summary judgment for the appellant on the basis of qualified immunity.

I.

Appellant Christopher Rizzo is a police officer in Fairfax County, Virginia, assigned to the Narcotics Enforcement Team (NET). On March 23, 1990, Rizzon and several members of the NET conducted a "sting" operation in the parking lot of the Bull Run Grill (the Grill) located in Centerville, Virginia. The Grill's parking lot had the reputation of being an open-air drug market and there had been past incidents involving weapons and violence at that location. The NET had conducted law enforcement operations on the premises prior to March 23, 1990. In the two operations immediately preceding that of March 23, members of the NET had recovered guns from individuals arrested or had recovered them from the area where they were arrested. Rizzo had participated in both of these operations. There had been another operation planned to take place subsequent to these two and prior to March 23, but it was canceled after several people were shot in a "drive-by" shooting at the grill which occurred several minutes prior to the arrival of NET personnel.

In this operation, also known as a "reversal" operation, one police officer posing as a narcotics dealer would sell a fake substance that was supposed to be crack cocaine. Joint Appendix at 41. After the purchase, that officer would signal the other officers in hiding, who would then arrest the purchaser and secure the area. The arrestee would be charged with attempting to possess cocaine. Ibid.

On the night of March 23, 1990, Officer Rizzo's role in the operation was to wait in a van for an arrest signal, then drive it into the parking lot and block the escape route of any suspect's car. He was then instructed to secure that car and anyone inside it. Rizzo wore a black uniform that evening which was covered by a black bullet-proof vest with "Police" written on it in large white letters. He also wore a fluorescent arm-band with "Police" written on it and wore a mask over his face with the same written across the forehead. Rizzo's police badge was in full view, clipped to the outside of his belt.

The officer wore a face mask to preserve and protect his identity because his duties often required him to purchase drugs in open-air markets.

The NET made four or five arrests that night before the car carrying the appellee Norman Slattery arrived. Slattery was the passenger in a white car that pulled into the parking lot about the same time as a Ford truck. The drivers of both vehicles parked, and then approached the officer posing as the narcotics dealer. Slattery, however, remained in the front passenger seat of the car.

When the arrest signal was given, several officers came out of hiding and moved in to arrest the two drivers. Rizzo drove the van into the lot and blocked the car containing Slattery. He then got out of the van and approached Slattery, who remained seated in the car. Rizzo shined a flashlight through the window of the car's front passenger door, but he could not see Slattery's hands. Rizzo identified himself as a police officer, and ordered Slattery to raise his hands. He gave this command at least twice. When Slattery failed to respond, Rizzo kicked the car door window. Slattery then turned his head slowly and looked at Rizzo. The officer opened the car door, and yelled "police officer . . . get your hands up now." Joint Appendix at 43, 97.

By this time Officer Rizzo had drawn his service revolver. He could not see Slattery's left hand clearly. This was the hand away from the officer. Rizzo was, however, able to see that the hand appeared to be partially closed around an object. Slattery turned his head slowly towards Rizzo and turned away. Rizzo again ordered Slattery to put up his hands. Slattery turned his entire upper body towards the officer, who could still not see Slattery's left hand. Rizzo then believing that Slattery was coming at him with a weapon, shot him once in the face with his revolver. The object in Slattery's hand was later determined to be a beer bottle.

Another NET member, Officer Turner had witnessed most of the events leading up to the shooting. He approached the scene upon hearing Officer Rizzo's shouts. Turner saw Slattery look at Officer Rizzo, and noted that he did not put his hands up. Turner drew his revolver because he thought the appellee was "up to something." J.A. at 203. Turner was about thirty feet from the car and he could see Slattery only from the biceps area up. He saw Slattery bend down and Turner believed that Slattery was reaching for a weapon. He then saw Slattery turn towards Rizzo again and heard a shot.

Slattery brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Officer Rizzo had deprived him of his constitutional rights as protected by the fourth, fifth, and fourteenth amendments. He also asserted state law claims of assault, battery, false imprisonment, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. After discovery, Rizzo moved for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion as it applied to Slattery's excessive use of force claim, but dismissed the other claims. Rizzo now appeals the order refusing to grant him qualified immunity.

II.

Officer Rizzo first argues that a claim of qualified immunity is available to a law enforcement officer in a claim of excessive force. Mr. Slattery does not contest this argument. The district court, however, appears to have held that qualified immunity is not available in such claims.

The district court denied appellant's motion for summary judgment in a one-page order issued December 21, 1990. No written opinion was issued. At the hearing, however, the court noted that it believed that qualified immunity could not be applied in a claim of excessive use of force, see J.A. at 23-27.

There is no principled reason not to allow a defense of qualified immunity in an excessive use of force claim, when it is allowed in other actions alleging violations of the fourth amendment. The interests served by the principle of qualified immunity are present in all suits alleging violations of the fourth amendment. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3038, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). Although the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has indicated that qualified immunity is not available in excessive use of force claims, all other courts of appeals that have addressed this issue directly have held that qualified immunity is available in such cases. See Thorsted v. Kelly, 858 F.2d 571 (9th Cir. 1988); Brown v. Glossip, 878 F.2d 871 (5th Cir. 1989); Finnegan v. Fountain, 915 F.2d 817 (2d Cir. 1990). We agree with the majority of these courts and hold that qualified immunity can be applied in claims alleging excessive use of force in violation of the fourth amendment.

Other courts of appeals have affirmed grants of qualified immunity in excessive use of force claims without addressing the issue. See e.g. Fitzgerald v. Patrick, 927 F.2d 1037 (8th Cir. 1991); Zuchel v. Spinharney, 890 F.2d 273 (10th Cir. 1989). Clark v. Evans, 840 F.2d 876 (11th Cir. 1988). The Supreme Court of the United States recently reserved judgment on this issue in a case involving excessive use of force by a police officer where qualified immunity was not raised. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 399 n. 12, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 1873 n. 12, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989).

III.

We must now determine whether qualified immunity should have been granted to Officer Rizzo under the undisputed facts in this case summarized above. Government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from civil liability to the extent their conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). Qualified immunity protects all such officials unless the law clearly prohibited the action taken. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2817, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985).

At the time this incident occurred, the Supreme Court had held that the fourth amendment limited a police officer's use of deadly force to those situations, among others, where he has probable cause to believe that a suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or others. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 11, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 1701, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985). This is the general right that the appellant was alleged to have abused. For the purpose of determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity the plaintiff's rights must be clearly established under the particular circumstances confronting the official at the time of the questioned action. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). The right of the plaintiff must be established so clearly that a reasonable official would know what he is doing violates that right. Ibid. Where there is a legitimate question as to whether the officer's conduct would objectively violate the plaintiff's right, qualified immunity "gives police officers the necessary latitude to pursue their [duties] without having to anticipate, on the pain of civil liability, future refinements or clarifications of constitutional law." Tarantino v. Baker, 825 F.2d 772 (4th Cir. 1987).

The appellee argues that the primary question in determining the issue of qualified immunity is whether Rizzo in the eyes of a reasonable policeman acted reasonably in shooting Slattery, and that such an issue is best resolved by a jury. That issue reaches the merits of the case, but qualified immunity affords government officials greater protection than a simple defense on the merits. See Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526, 105 S.Ct. at 2815. Furthermore, the purpose of qualified immunity is to remove most civil liability actions, except those where the official clearly broke the law, from the legal process well in advance of the submission of facts to a jury. Ibid. A police officer should prevail on an assertion of qualified immunity if a reasonable officer possessing the same information could have believed that his conduct was lawful. Anderson, 483 U.S. at 641, 107 S.Ct. at 3039. If a reasonable officer could have found probable cause to believe that Slattery presented a serious threat of personal harm at the time that Rizzo pulled the trigger, then as a matter of law, the appellant is entitled to qualified immunity.

We believe that under the undisputed facts of this case, a reasonable officer could have had probable cause to believe that the appellee posed a deadly threat and therefore would be authorized to use deadly force. Therefore, we hold that Officer Rizzo was entitled to qualified immunity. We reverse the order of the district court and remand the case for entry of an order consistent with this decision.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.


Summaries of

Slattery v. Rizzo

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Jul 25, 1991
939 F.2d 213 (4th Cir. 1991)

holding that the shooting of an individual, suspected of narcotics trafficking, was objectively reasonable when the suspect ignored commands to raise his hands and turned in the officers' direction with his hand partially closed around an object

Summary of this case from Wilson v. Prince George's Cnty.

holding that the shooting of an individual, suspected of narcotics trafficking, was objectively reasonable when the suspect ignored commands to raise his hands and turned in the officers’ direction with his hand partially closed around an object

Summary of this case from Wilson v. Prince George's Cnty.

holding that officer could have reasonably believed he had probable cause to believe that suspect posed a deadly threat as suspect turned toward him; suspect was passenger in car stopped during a sting operation in an open-air drug market where there had been past incidents involving weapons and gun violence; suspect refused officer's repeated requests to show his hands and officer could see that the hand farthest from the officer “appeared to be partially closed around an object”

Summary of this case from Smith v. Ray

holding that use of deadly force was justified when suspect in vehicle repeatedly refused orders to raise his hands and the officer perceived that he was holding something

Summary of this case from Waterman v. Batton

holding that such a deprivation of a Constitutional right must be clearly established which, of course, it was not here, being non-existent

Summary of this case from Kitchen v. Upshaw

holding that deadly force was appropriate when the suspect failed to comply with the officer's order to raise his hands and the officer reasonably believed the suspect to be coming at him with a weapon, although the "weapon" turned out to be a beer bottle

Summary of this case from Anderson v. Russell

holding force reasonable where an officer could have had probable cause to believe that a suspect posed a deadly threat even though the suspect turned out to be unarmed

Summary of this case from Milstead v. Kibler

holding that deadly force was appropriate when the suspect failed to comply with the officer's order to raise his hands and the officer reasonably believed the suspect to be coming at him with a weapon, although the "weapon" turned out to be a beer bottle

Summary of this case from Dobbs v. Townsend

holding that the shooting of an individual, suspected of narcotics trafficking, was objectively reasonable when the suspect ignored commands to raise his hands and turned in the officers' direction with his hand partially closed around an object

Summary of this case from McRae v. Pfeffer

holding deadly force reasonable where officer could have had probable cause to believe that suspect posed deadly threat even though suspect turned out to be unarmed

Summary of this case from Mason-Funk v. City of Neenah

holding use of deadly force justified when suspect in vehicle repeatedly refused orders to raise his hands and defendant officer perceived he was holding something

Summary of this case from Wilcoxson v. City of Raleigh

holding use of force against an unarmed suspect was reasonable since officer had probable cause to believe suspect posed deadly threat

Summary of this case from Keller v. Hood

holding that qualified immunity shields the defendant if a reasonable officer could have had probable cause to believe that the suspect posed a serious threat of physical harm at the moment the defendant pulled the trigger

Summary of this case from Isquierdo v. Frederick

finding deadly force appropriate when suspect failed to comply with officer's order to raise his hands and officer reasonably believed suspect to be coming at him with a weapon, although the "weapon" turned out to be a beer bottle

Summary of this case from Gregory v. Zumult

finding police officer who shot the plaintiff while conducting a sting operation was entitled to qualified immunity because the police officer believed the plaintiff was coming at him with a weapon that turned out to be a beer bottle

Summary of this case from Lowery v. Stovall

finding that a narcotics officer participating in a sting operation could have believed that the arrestee posed a deadly threat, and was thus entitled to qualified immunity in an excessive force case, where past incidents involving weapons and violence had occurred at the location of the arrest and where the arrestee ignored the officer's order to raise his hands and instead turned toward the officer with an object in his hand

Summary of this case from Taft v. Vines

finding use offeree reasonable where suspect was stopped as part of a narcotics sting and refused to follow the officer's directions to place his hands where they could be seen

Summary of this case from Wright v. Hales

granting qualified immunity to officer who shot suspect in a drug sting operation who refused multiple orders to put his hands up, appeared to have a possible weapon in one hand, and turned toward the officer as if to confront him where officer was wearing a bullet-proof vest, fluorescent arm-band, and mask over his face - all of which had "Police" clearly written on them - and another officer on the scene was able to verify the sequence of events

Summary of this case from Boyd v. Weiner

granting qualified immunity where officer used deadly force even though he could not see a weapon in the suspect's hand, and where it was not entirely clear that the suspect's movement indicated an attack

Summary of this case from Pugh v. Abbott

reversing the denial of the officers' summary judgment motion despite the fact that it was determined, after the plaintiff was shot in the face, that the plaintiff was not, as the officers believed, armed with a weapon

Summary of this case from Knibbs v. Momphard

reversing the denial of the officers' summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity, where the plaintiff was not armed with a weapon as the officers had thought, but where a reasonable officer could have believed that the plaintiff was armed

Summary of this case from Ridge v. City of Randleman

reversing denial of officer's summary judgment motion where officers mistook beer bottle for a weapon

Summary of this case from Austin v. Town of Blacksburg

reversing denial of motion for summary judgment where the facts were undisputed and, based on those facts, the officer had probable cause to believe that the plaintiff posed a deadly threat

Summary of this case from Archuleta v. Lacuesta

recognizing the qualified immunity defense in excessive force cases and observing that such a defense "affords government officials greater protection than a simple defense on the merits"

Summary of this case from McCall v. Williams

In Slattery v. Rizzo, 939 F.2d 213 (4th Cir. 1991), the suspect was stopped as part of a narcotics sting and refused to follow the officer's directions to place his hands where they could be seen.

Summary of this case from Pena v. Porter
Case details for

Slattery v. Rizzo

Case Details

Full title:NORMAN SLATTERY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. CHRISTOPHER RIZZO…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Jul 25, 1991

Citations

939 F.2d 213 (4th Cir. 1991)

Citing Cases

Craddock v. Beaufort County Sheriff Dept

"A police officer should prevail on an assertion of qualified immunity if a reasonable officer possessing the…

Austin v. Town of Blacksburg

Use of deadly force is reasonable if the officer has probable cause to believe that the individual poses a…