Elliott v. Leavitt
1996 WL 649089, 99 F. 3d 640 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The use of deadly force by a police officer is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when the officer has a sound reason to believe that a suspect poses an obvious, serious, and immediate threat of physical harm to the officer or others, regardless of the suspect's physical restraints.
Facts:
- On June 18, 1995, Officer Jason Leavitt stopped Archie Elliott III on suspicion of driving while intoxicated.
- Elliott appeared intoxicated, failed sobriety tests, and was arrested.
- Leavitt handcuffed Elliott's hands behind his back and performed a brief search, finding no weapon.
- Officer Wayne Cheney arrived and assisted Leavitt in placing the handcuffed Elliott into the front passenger seat of the police car with the seatbelt fastened.
- While both officers were standing outside the car, they saw Elliott, who had freed himself from the seatbelt, pointing a small handgun at them with his finger on the trigger.
- Leavitt yelled, “Gun!,” and ordered Elliott to drop the weapon.
- When Elliott failed to comply, Leavitt and Cheney fired their weapons, killing him.
- After the shooting, the handgun was found still clasped in Elliott's hand.
Procedural Posture:
- Archie Elliott III’s parents, representing his estate, brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive force claim against Officers Leavitt and Cheney in federal district court.
- The defendant officers filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing they were entitled to qualified immunity.
- The district court denied the officers’ motion for summary judgment.
- The officers (appellants) filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, with Elliott's parents as the appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a police officer's use of deadly force against a handcuffed suspect who manages to point a gun at the officer violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against excessive force?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilkinson, Chief Judge
No. A police officer's use of deadly force does not violate the Fourth Amendment when it is a response to an obvious, serious, and immediate threat to their safety. The court's analysis of an excessive force claim must be based on the objective reasonableness of the officer's actions at the moment the force was used, from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene. In this case, Officers Leavitt and Cheney were confronted with an intoxicated individual pointing a gun at them from only a few feet away with his finger on the trigger. This constituted a clear and immediate deadly threat, making their response reasonable under Graham v. Connor. Arguments regarding the adequacy of the initial search, the number of shots fired, or the possibility of retreat are irrelevant, as they constitute the kind of judicial hindsight the law prohibits. The focus must remain on the split-second judgment made by the officers when facing a life-threatening situation.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the principle of qualified immunity for police officers in excessive force cases by strictly segmenting the reasonableness analysis to the precise moment force is used. It establishes that an officer's prior actions, such as a potentially negligent search that fails to discover a weapon, are not relevant to whether the subsequent use of deadly force was reasonable. This interpretation of Graham v. Connor narrows the scope of inquiry in such cases, making it more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in excessive force claims if a clear and immediate threat existed at the moment of the confrontation. The ruling solidifies the legal protection for officers who make split-second decisions under threat, even if their own prior conduct may have contributed to the dangerous circumstances.
