Deanna Puskas v. Delaware Cnty., Ohio

Majority - Suhrheinrich

No, the police officers' use of a canine and subsequent deadly force did not constitute excessive force because, under the rapidly evolving circumstances, their actions were objectively reasonable, particularly given the suspect's threatening behavior, noncompliance, and access to weapons. Writing for the majority, Judge Suhrheinrich affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, finding that the officers' actions were objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, which evaluates excessive force claims using the Graham v. Connor factors: severity of the crime, immediate threat to safety, and active resistance/flight. The court prioritized video evidence over conflicting testimony, as established in Scott v. Harris, to determine the facts of the encounter. Regarding the canine deployment, the court found it reasonable because Brian was suspected of domestic violence, had threatened his wife with weapons, had wielded firearms, acted erratically, refused to surrender, and was warned he would be bitten. Video evidence showed Brian running towards the house after officers warned him and before Cash was released. The court dismissed arguments of a poorly trained dog, citing training records, and rejected the idea that a taser should have been used, stating the Fourth Amendment does not require officers to use the "best technique," only a reasonable one, especially with lethal weapons nearby. For the use of deadly force, the court applied Graham factors and Tennessee v. Garner, noting the severe crime (domestic violence with threats), Brian's repeated disobedience and flight attempts, and most critically, the imminent threat posed when Brian picked up a pistol case and pulled out a silver revolver while fleeing, making officers "easy targets." The court emphasized that officers do not need to wait for a suspect to "brandish" a weapon or point it directly at them when other factors indicate a risk. The argument that the canine deployment "precipitated" the shooting was rejected, as uses of force are analyzed in segments, and officers are not scrutinized for creating the circumstances. The court declined to consider Deanna's argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that officers should have deescalated given Brian's apparent mental illness, citing the forfeiture rule. Even if considered, the case was distinguished from Palma v. Johns because officers here were responding to a live crime scene with an armed, noncompliant suspect. Finally, since no underlying constitutional violation was found, the Monell claim against Delaware County for its policies or failure to train/supervise also failed.