Woodward v. City of Tucson, No. 16-15784 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to two police officers in an action alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for unconstitutional seizures and use of excessive force. In this case, officers entered into a vacant apartment without a warrant and used deadly force on Michael Duncklee, who aggressively attacked them while growling and brandishing a broken hockey stick inside the apartment. The panel reversed the denial of qualified immunity regarding the warrantless entry and seizure of the apartment, because Duncklee had no reasonable expectation of privacy while trespassing in the apartment. The panel also reversed the denial of qualified immunity regarding the seizure of and use of force on Duncklee, because it was not clearly established that defendants' actions violated a constitutional right. Finally, the panel reversed the district court's partial grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff.
Court Description: Qualified Immunity The panel reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to defendant Tucson police officers from plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unconstitutional seizures and use of excessive force. Plaintiff’s claims stemmed from the officers’ warrantless entry into a vacant apartment and use of deadly force on Michael Duncklee, who aggressively attacked them while growling and brandishing a broken hockey stick inside the apartment. Plaintiff is the representative of the Estate of Michael Duncklee. The panel held that plaintiff had standing to assert Fourth Amendment violations as to Duncklee’s seizure and the use of force against him. The panel also held, however, that plaintiff lacked standing to assert a Fourth Amendment violation for the warrantless entry and seizure of the vacant apartment. The panel held that the district court appeared to WOODWARD V. CITY OF TUCSON 3 erroneously view the case through a landlord/tenant lens. Although plaintiff described Duncklee as an overnight guest of Amber Watts, the former tenant who was in the apartment with Duncklee, the panel held that Watts had no privacy rights to assign to Duncklee because she had been formally evicted and Watts was aware of this eviction. Addressing qualified immunity regarding the seizure of the apartment, the panel held that because Duncklee had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the apartment, plaintiff could not establish that the officers violated Duncklee’s Fourth Amendment rights by entering the apartment without a warrant. The panel concluded that the district court erred in denying qualified immunity regarding this claim. Addressing qualified immunity regarding the seizure of and use of force on Duncklee, the panel held that reasonable officers in the defendant officers’ positions would not have known that shooting Duncklee violated a clearly established right; and that the use of deadly force could be acceptable in such a situation. The panel concluded that the district court erred in denying defendants qualified immunity regarding this claim.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.