Background
Shaun Fuhr threatened the mother of his infant daughter, fired a handgun in a public park, and then fled with the child. After a thirty-eight-minute pursuit involving a helicopter and SWAT officers, Fuhr was cornered in an alley. As he emerged from behind a bush and walked toward officers while holding the baby, Officer Noah Zech fired a single shot, killing Fuhr. The infant was retrieved unharmed.
The court’s reasoning
The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of qualified immunity, holding that Zech’s conduct did not violate clearly established law. The court declined to decide whether a Fourth Amendment violation occurred, focusing instead on the second prong of the qualified immunity test. The panel reasoned that Fuhr’s continued possession of the baby after firing a gun, fleeing from law enforcement, and ignoring commands to stop were factors that, when combined, distinguished this case from any precedent clearly establishing a constitutional violation. The court noted that unlike in George v. Morris, Fuhr had posed a threat throughout the pursuit and appeared to be using the child as a potential shield.
Fuhr’s continued possession of the baby after firing a gun, fleeing from law enforcement, and ignoring commands to stop are factors that, when combined, distinguish this case from clearly established law that sets out a constitutional violation.
Fuhr v. City of Seattle, No. 24-5618 (9th Cir. May 7, 2026)
The dissent
The undisputed facts make clear that when he was shot Fuhr presented no immediate threat to either the officers or his daughter.
William A. Fletcher
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the high bar for overcoming qualified immunity in excessive force cases involving fleeing suspects with children, emphasizing that courts must find specific precedent with nearly identical facts to deny immunity.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download