Wallace v. Cummings, No. 15-3279 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseAfter Carleton J. Wallace was fatally shot by a police officer, Wallace's estate filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied the officer summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, but granted summary judgment to the chief of police and the city. The officer appeals. The court concluded that, under the totality of the circumstances, the record does not establish that the officer's use of deadly force was reasonable as a matter of law. In this case, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the estate, Wallace did not pose an immediate and significant threat of serious injury to the officer or bystanders because he may not have committed any violent felony, the physical struggle was minimal, and he was not "holding a firearm" when he attempted to flee. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the estate, a reasonable fact finder could thus conclude that the seizure violated a clearly established constitutional right. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Murphy, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Smith, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Civil rights. In an action alleging excessive force in the death of plaintiff's decedent, the district court did not err in denying the police officer's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity as there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the officer intentionally shot the victim; the record does not conclusively establish that the victim was committing the violent felony of aggravated assault at the time he was shot or that he posed a significant immediate threat to the safety of the defendant officer or other bystanders; further, a fact finder could reasonably conclude that the victim no longer posed a significant threat after he discarded his gun and began to flee; considering the totality of the circumstances, the record does not establish that the officer's use of deadly force was reasonable as a matter of law; it has been clearly established since 1985 that the use of deadly force against a fleeing suspect who does not pose a significant threat of death or serious injury to the officer or bystanders is not permitted.
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.