In Handy v. Jones, published September 15, 2026, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court order denying a motion to dismiss. Late at night, the plaintiffs’ decedent’s neighbor called 911 multiple times to report a disturbance between the decedent and his girlfriend. The neighbor reported hearing screaming, a loud thud against the wall, and two shots. The neighbor also reported that the decedent, appearing agitatted, was standing at the end of the driveway holding a shotgun and waiting for the police to come. This information was allegedly conveyed to the multiple officers who responded. The officers announced their presence and ordered the decedent to come out of the apartment. The decedent exited the apartment carrying his shotgun. He refused multiple orders to drop the shotgun and put his hands in the air. A police video, incorporated into the plaintiffs’ complaint by reference, confirms that as the decedent walked toward the defendant police officers in the parking lot, he waved his shotgun over his head and responded to orders to raise his hand with a curse. As he stepped off the curb onto the parking area, the defendant officers shot and killed him. The defendant officers moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion, finding that it could not determine that the amount of force used did not violate the 4th Amendment, and that a reasonable factfinder could find that the decedent did not pose an immediate threat to the officers or others when the officers used deadly force. It cited 9th Circuit case law as purportedly establishing that the officers could not use deadly force under the 4th Amendment unless the decedent aimed the weapon at them or engaged in other threatening conduct.
The 9th Circuit ruled that the district misconstrued the applicable standard. The test is not whether a reasonable factfinder could find that the dceedent did not pose an immediate threat. It is whether it would be objectively reasonable for the officer to believe that the amount of force employed was required by the situation he confronted. The facts alleged in the complaint and the camera footage show that the decedent posed an immediate threat to the officers and that the officers acted reasonably in shooting him. The officers reasonably believed that the decedent may have committed a violent crime. Although the decedent exited the apartment, he refused to drop his weapon when instructed, and instead waved it over his head and cursed. A reasonable officer could believe that he was resisting arrest. The camera footage showed the decedent was belligerantly waving his shotgun around as he continued to advance on the officers. The officers had been told the decedent was waiting for them ot arrive. He could have instantly fired his shotgun from the hip. He was agitated. The undisputed evidence compels the conclusion he posed an immediate threat. Even if plaintiffs could make an initial showing of a violation of a constitutional right, the officers did not violate a clearly-established Constitutional right by using deadly force. No authority at the time of the incident suggest that when facing an armed individual suspected of a violent crime, an officer is required to hold fire until and unless the suspect actually aims the gun at the officer.
Leave a Reply