Summary
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity to Officer Kevin Davis in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from the fatal police shooting of J.R. The court held that, accepting the district court’s view of the undisputed facts, a reasonable jury could find that Davis used deadly force without an immediate threat because J.R. was fleeing and made no furtive or threatening movement with his weapon. The court further held that this Fourth Amendment right was clearly established in April 2020.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Fourth Circuit had interlocutory jurisdiction to review the denial of qualified immunity despite factual disputes concerning the shooting.
- Whether, accepting the district court's view of the undisputed facts, Davis's use of deadly force against an armed suspect who was running away, ignoring commands, and making no undisputed furtive or threatening movement with his weapon violated the Fourth Amendment.
- Whether the Fourth Amendment right to be free from deadly force when posing no immediate threat was clearly established in April 2020.
Holdings
- On an interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity, the court lacks jurisdiction to review challenges to the district court's determination that genuine disputes of material fact exist, but may review whether, accepting the facts as the district court viewed them, the defendant violated clearly established law.
- Davis's use of deadly force violated J.R.'s Fourth Amendment rights because, viewing the facts in Ruffin's favor, J.R. was running away and made no furtive or other threatening movement with his weapon that would have indicated an imminent threat.
- Davis was not entitled to qualified immunity because, in April 2020, it was clearly established that an officer could not use deadly force against an armed suspect who was fleeing and had made no furtive or other threatening movement with the weapon.
Key quotations
“We conclude that it was clearly established at the time of the shooting that a police officer couldn’t use deadly force against a fleeing suspect, even an armed one, who didn’t make a furtive or threatening movement with his weapon.” (slip op. at 3)
“But here, a reasonable officer would have recognized that he faced no imminent threat when an armed suspect was running away and made no threatening movement with his weapon.” (slip op. at 10)
“Absent such evidence, Davis violated J.R.’s clearly established “right to be free from deadly force when posing no threat.”” (slip op. at 12)
Factual background
During a COVID-19 stay-at-home and curfew order, Officer Kevin Davis encountered J.R., a teenager, walking in a residential neighborhood and pursued him when he ran away. J.R. possessed a firearm, ignored Davis's commands, briefly crouched, then stood and continued running; the record disputed whether he reached for or made a threatening movement with the weapon. Davis fired ten rounds, striking J.R. in the forehead and killing him, although forensic evidence showed that J.R. had not fired the gun.
Procedural history
Brittany Ruffin sued Officer Kevin Davis under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Davis violated J.R.'s Fourth Amendment rights by using deadly force. A magistrate judge recommended denying Davis's summary-judgment motion on the excessive-force claim, and the district court adopted that recommendation and denied qualified immunity. Davis brought an interlocutory appeal, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed.