Date: 09-25-2024

Case Style:

Latetia Nunley, et al. v. Blayne Newton

Case Number: 4:22-CR-169

Judge: Fernando J. Gaitan

Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Jackson County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Kansas City Civil Rights Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney: Maria Ann Lanahan

Description:

Kansas City, Missouri civil rights violation lawyer represented the Plaintiff.

Officer Blayne Newton of the Kansas City, Missouri Police Department shot and killed Donnie Sanders during a traffic stop. Sanders’s children, Latetia Nunley and Zahleyiah Fielder (collectively, “Nunley”) filed suit against Officer Newton pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating Sanders’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force. Officer Newton moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The district court1 denied Officer Newton’s motion, concluding that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Officer Newton appeals the denial of
qualified immunity.

* * *

Nunley alleges that Newton used excessive deadly force against Sanders in
violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. “An objectively unreasonable use of force
is excessive, violating the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable
seizures.” Williams v. City of Burlington, 27 F.4th 1346, 1350–51 (8th Cir. 2022).
Whether an officer used reasonable “force turns on whether the officer’s actions were
objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him,
without regard to his subjective intent or motivation.” Id. at 1351 (internal quotation
marks omitted). “[P]roper application” of the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness
test “requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case,
including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate
threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest
or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396
(1989). “Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a
threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not
constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.” Wealot, 865
F.3d at 1125 (internal quotation marks omitted). But “an officer may not use deadly
force against a fleeing suspect unless the suspect poses an immediate and significant
threat of serious injury or death to the officer or to bystanders.” Wallace v. City of
Alexander, 843 F.3d 763, 769 (8th Cir. 2016) (cleaned up). “Officers may
not seize . . . unarmed, nondangerous suspects by shooting them dead.” Id. (emphasis
added) (cleaned up). Although “it is true that ‘[a]n officer is not constitutionally
required to wait until he sets eyes upon the weapon before employing deadly force,’”
“this rule applies when an officer is trying to ‘protect himself against a fleeing
suspect’ who is armed or reaching for what appears to be a weapon.” Ngo v. Storlie,
495 F.3d 597, 603 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting Thompson v. Hubbard, 257 F.3d 896, 899
(8th Cir. 2001)).

* * *

Outcome: At the time that Officer Newton shot Sanders, it was clearly established that the
use of deadly force against a fleeing suspect who poses no significant threat to the officer is unconstitutional. See Williams, 27 F.4th at 1352. “[T]o determine whether [Newton] violated clearly established law, we need to know what happened. Because the factual record—as assumed by the district court—is unsettled and disputed, we lack jurisdiction to go further.” Mulbah, 55 F.4th at 1167.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: