Liggins v. Cohen, No. 19-2045 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff filed suit against a police officer under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the officer used excessive force in seizing plaintiff's 16 year old son. The officer shot the son and the son sustained serious injuries paralyzing him below the waist.
The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of the officer's motion for summary judgment, holding that the seizure was not unreasonable. The court held that, under the circumstances, a reasonable officer was justified in discharging his firearm where the son was carrying a gun that moved while he ran, the officers were investigating a report of a stolen firearm, and the son was fleeing from police who had arrived at the apartment building. Given the convergence of events and the split-second decision for the officer, the court stated that it was not unreasonable for the officer to use force as he did.
Court Description: [Colloton, Author, with Shepherd and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. The district court erred in denying the defendant police officer's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity; the defendant officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the plaintiff's son, who was fleeing officers and carrying a stolen weapon the officers were seeking, could raise the gun and shoot; the incident happened so quickly that the defendant officer had no time to discern whether the young man was carrying the gun in an unusual manner or to shout a warning before he shot; given the convergence of events and the split-second timing, it was not unreasonable for the officer to shoot.
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.