Fourth Amendment excessive force claim under 42 USC § 1983; Qualified immunity; Whether the police officers’ use of “deadly force” was “objectively reasonable”; Whether plaintiff established any genuine issues of material fact regarding the shooting

The court affirmed the district court’s grant of qualified immunity, holding that defendants-police officers’ “split-second choice to repeatedly use deadly force” against plaintiff’s decedent, “Isaifan—an armed suspect who refused to comply with orders while reaching for a weapon—was reasonable.” The police received a report of an abandoned car blocking traffic on the highway. A caller reported that the driver had been wearing camouflage and what looked like a bulletproof vest, and a visual of the interior of the vehicle showed a weapon and ammunition. Defendants (Akers and Rea) received the dispatch call and found him walking. Isaifan jogged into a wooded area when he saw them pulling over, and they followed, identifying themselves. “As Isaifan came into view, the officers ordered him to raise his hands and get on the ground. [He] initially started to raise his hands, holding unidentified objects in both. But he then stopped ‘following any commands whatsoever.’” One of the officers “saw the barrel of Isaifan’s gun fully clear his holster. From the side, Rea watched Isaifan’s arm settle, as though he had finished drawing the weapon and was holding it at his hip. At that point, Rea thought it was ‘100 percent clear’ that Isaifan ‘was turning with his firearm in his hand towards Officer Akers.’” When Isaifan turned, “both officers fired at point-blank range.” The five seconds leading up to and including the shooting was not recorded because trees obstructed the surveillance camera’s view. Isaifan’s ex-wife, plaintiff, acting on behalf of his estate, sued under § 1983 for violations of Isaifan’s Fourth Amendment rights. At issue on appeal was the district court’s qualified immunity ruling on the excessive force claim. The court noted it has consistently ruled that “officers may reasonably use deadly force against a noncompliant suspect drawing a firearm.” Defendants here “believed they were interacting with a suspect armed with a gun (and holding a grenade). That suspect then ignored commands to show his hands, walked menacingly toward officers, and resisted their efforts to detain him.” He unholstered his gun and turned toward them. The court also noted that in “similar circumstances, courts have held that an officer’s decision to shoot until a suspect was neutralized was reasonable.” And it found that plaintiff failed to establish any genuine disputes of material fact. “Based on this record, a reasonable juror couldn’t find that the officers violated Isaifan’s Fourth Amendment rights.”