Charles Byers, a man with schizoaffective disorder, was shot and killed by Chesterfield County police officer Gordon Painter during an encounter on July 8, 2023. Byers had walked to a residential neighborhood after being released from a hospital and a jail, and he was reported to police for attempting to break into homes and vandalizing property. When officers arrived, Byers was standing in a driveway holding a hatchet. Despite multiple commands to drop the weapon, Byers ignored them, moved toward the officers, and then backed away while facing them. Officer Painter fired three shots, and after Byers turned and began running away, Painter fired three or four additional shots that struck Byers in the back, killing him. Byers' parents filed a Section 1983 lawsuit alleging excessive force. The district court denied the officer's motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, reasoning that Byers did not pose a threat in the moments immediately before the shooting. The officer appealed, arguing that the court should consider the totality of the circumstances and that the law was not clearly established.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity, conducting a two-step inquiry: whether the officer violated a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established. First, the court addressed the standard for reasonableness. While the district court erred by limiting its analysis to the moments immediately before the shooting, the Supreme Court's decision in Barnes v. Felix requires courts to consider the totality of the circumstances. Applying the Graham factors to the full encounter, the court found that while the severity of the crime (attempted breaking and entering) weighed in the officer's favor, the other factors weighed heavily against him. Specifically, Byers did not pose an immediate threat because he kept the hatchet lowered, never made a furtive or threatening movement, and was backing away. Furthermore, the court held that shooting a suspect in the back as he fled is an obvious violation of the Fourth Amendment under Tennessee v. Garner. Second, regarding clearly established law, the court cited Hensley v. Price and Knibbs v. Momphard, which held that officers cannot use deadly force against suspects who possess weapons but do not make threatening movements. The court concluded that a reasonable officer would have understood that shooting Byers under these circumstances was unlawful.
Officer Painter is not entitled to qualified immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage and must proceed to trial on the excessive force claim. The decision reinforces that officers cannot use deadly force against suspects who are merely holding weapons without making threatening movements, and it strictly prohibits shooting fleeing suspects in the back who pose no immediate threat.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download