N.S. v. Kansas City Board of Police, No. 20-1526 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Kansas City Officer (“Officer”) shot and killed the victim during a foot chase. Family members of the victim filed suit and the district court concluded that the Officer was entitled to both qualified and official immunity. In addition to contesting the grant of summary judgment on appeal, Plaintiffs argued they should receive a trial on their claims against the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners and the other municipal officials named in their complaint.
In evaluating the family’s excessive-force claim against the Officer, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court explained that the key issue requires answering whether the officer’s actions violated a constitutional right and then whether the right was clearly established. The court reasoned that the Supreme Court has explained that “the focus” of the clearly-established-right inquiry “is on whether the officer had fair notice that [his] conduct was unlawful.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018). Here, “judged against the backdrop of the law at the time of the conduct,” a reasonable officer would not have had “fair notice” that shooting the victim under these circumstances violated the Fourth Amendment.
Additionally, to prevail in this case under Kisela, the family would need to establish “the right’s contours were sufficiently definite that any reasonable official in the defendant’s shoes would have understood that he was violating it.” Here, the family failed to show that the Officer acted in bad faith or with malice. Finally, there is not enough evidence to find that the municipal defendants liable under a deliberate indifference theory.
Court Description: [Stras, Author, with Loken and Arnold, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. For the court's earlier opinion in the matter, see N.S. v. Kan. City Bd. of Police Comm'rs, 933 F. 3d 967 (8th Cir. 2019. On remand, the district court found there had been no constitutional violation when defendant Thompson, a Kansas City police officer, shot and killed plaintiff's decedent during a foot chase; the district court further found that plaintiff could not recover under Missouri law for wrongful death, as the officer had been, at most, negligent; even under a plaintiff-friendly version of the facts, defendant Thompson was justified in using deadly force; as a result, he did not violate a clearly established right and was entitled to qualified immunity; defendant Thompson was also entitled to official immunity on the state law claim for wrongful death, as there was no evidence he acted in bad faith or with malice; there was insufficient evidence to find the municipal defendant were liable under a deliberate-indifference theory.
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.