In Fuhr v. City of Seattle, published May 7, 2026, a divided panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for a police officer based on qualified immunity. The mother of the decedent’s daughter made a 911 call from a public playfield, reporting that the father of her child (against whom she had a no-contact order, and who had beaten her the day before) had fired a gun and taken the one-year-old daughter. An officer who arrived at the park saw that the mother was upset and had visible bruises, and that the decedent was “incredibly intoxicated” and had the child with him. Multiple police units responded, including a SWAT team. The defendant SWAT officer saw the suspect fleeing, gripping the child, her head and arms flopping around violently. The decedent ignored commands to stop. The defendant and another SWAT officer encountered the decedentin an alley, emerging from bushes and advancing toward the officers. The officers did not know what lay behind the bushes. The decedent held the daughter in front of his chest. Although he did not see the weapon, the defendant officer believed the decedent was still armed, was cornered, and was using the child as a hostage. The officer shot the decedent in the face, killing him. The daughter was unharmed. The decedent did not have a firearm on him when shot, but the gun was recovered in the vicinity.
The panel majority affirmed that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. The court examined only the second prong of qualified immunity: Whether the officer’s conduct violated a clearly-established constitutional right. To find a right that is clearly established, the court must identify a case where an officer acting under similar circumstances was held to have violated the Constitution. The majority found no precedent encompassing a noncompliant, fleeing, potentially armed suspect holding a child or potential hostage. The decedent’s continued possession of the baby after firing a gun, fleeing from law enforcement, and ignoring commands to stop, in combination, distinguish the case from clearly established law that sets forth a constitutional violation.
A dissenting judge opined that the shot violated clearly established law, because both of the decedent’s hands were visible and he would have had to put down the baby to reach for a firearm. He therefore did not pose an immediate threat.
Leave a Reply