Ellison v. Lesher, No. 13-3371 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseOfficers Lesher and McCrillis were working off-duty, patrolling a Little Rock apartment complex. They noticed that Ellison’s apartment door was open. From outside, they could see 67-year-old Ellison sitting on his couch, leaning on his cane. After Lesher and McCrillis started a conversation, Ellison responded that he did not want help or attention. McCrillis thought Ellison was being mouthy and wanted to keep him from shutting the door. The women stepped inside. Ellison got up and approached. A physical altercation ensued. The officers repeatedly struck Ellison and knocked off his glasses. Ellison repeatedly told them to get out of his apartment. McCrillis requested back-up, which arrived after the physical altercation was over. Lesher was still inside the apartment. Officer Lucio reached inside to pull Lesher out. The officers instructed Ellison to lie down. He refused. Lesher told McCrillis that Ellison was getting his cane, and that she was going to shoot Ellison. She fired two shots into the apartment, killing Ellison. In the estate’s suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Eighth Circuit held that neither officer was entitled to qualified immunity on a claim of illegal entry; that Lesher was not entitled to qualified immunity on a claim of lethal excessive force; but both are entitled to qualified immunity on a claim concerning use of nonlethal force.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Wollman and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. In action alleging the defendant officers unlawfully entered the home of plaintiff's 67-year-old father and used excessive force when they shot and killed him, the district court did not err in denying defendants' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity on Count I of the complaint which alleged unlawful entry; under the facts outlined by the district court, defendants entered because they thought the deceased was being "mouthy" and that belief did not provide an exception to the warrant requirement for entering the residence; the court would not look to facts not outlined by the district court as that would be beyond the proper scope of an interlocutory appeal on the issue of qualified immunity; with respect to the district court's finding that defendant Lesher was not entitled to qualified immunity on Count II's allegations of excessive force, Lesher frames her argument that she was entitled to qualified immunity on a set of facts not assumed by the district court; while she may be able to prove at trial that the deceased was wielding a cane in a threatening manner, the court must accept for the purposes of its decision that he was not wielding the cane when shot; under the facts outlined by the district court officer Lesher would have been on notice that use of deadly force would not be reasonable, and Lesher was not entitled to qualified immunity; given the de minimus level of injuries the deceased suffered before the shooting, defendant McCrillis is entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim against him and defendant Lesher was entitled qualified immunity on plaintiff's claim she used excessive non-lethal force before the shooting.
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.