Cole v. Hutchins, No. 19-1399 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
After an officer shot and killed Roy Lee Richards, Jr., his estate filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the officer's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, holding that it has authority to decide the purely legal issue of whether the facts as alleged by plaintiff and found or assumed by the district court constitute a violation of clearly established law.
On the merits, the court held that the officer's use of deadly force was not objectively reasonable where the officer did not have probable cause to believe Richards was not pointing the weapon at someone and wielding it in an otherwise menacing fashion. Rather, Richards had retreated. Furthermore, the officer's failure to warn before shooting Richards exacerbated the circumstances. The court also held that it was clearly established at the time that the officer's use of deadly force was objectively unreasonable in light of the circumstances of this case.
Court Description: [Gruender, Author, with Arnold and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil Rights - qualified immunity. On appeal from denial of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity to officer alleged to have used excessive force when he shot and killed Richards, this court has jurisdiction to decide purely legal issue of whether facts as alleged and found or assumed by the district court violate clearly established law. Based on the facts presented that must be assumed, the officer's use of deadly force was not objectively reasonable, as the officer did not have probable cause to believe Richards posted a immediate threat of serious physical harm, was not pointing his gun, was not facing Underwood, and the officer did not provide any warning. Further, the law was clearly established that the officer's use of deadly force was objectively unreasonable in the circumstances of this case. Thus, the denial of summary judgment is affirmed.
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.