This case arises from the fatal police shooting of J.R., a high school senior, in Columbia, South Carolina, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Officer Kevin Davis responded to a report of teenagers loitering and encountered J.R. on a sidewalk. When Davis approached, J.R. ran. During the chase, which was captured on body-worn camera, J.R. briefly crouched near a fence before standing up and running again. Davis claimed J.R. reached for a weapon, but the court noted that while J.R. was carrying a gun, he never pointed it at Davis or fired it. Davis fired multiple shots, killing J.R. J.R.'s mother, Brittany Ruffin, sued Officer Davis under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures. Officer Davis moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity, but the district court denied the motion, finding that the use of deadly force was not justified under the circumstances.
Chief Judge Diaz, writing for the panel, applied the objective reasonableness standard under the Fourth Amendment. The court analyzed the three factors from Graham v. Connor: the severity of the crime, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat, and whether the suspect was actively resisting or evading arrest. The court found the first factor favored the plaintiff, as the underlying investigation involved minor offenses. While the third factor favored the officer because J.R. ignored commands to stop, the second factor was dispositive. The court emphasized that the most critical inquiry is whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the officer or others. The court rejected the officer's argument that the mere possession of a weapon and failure to obey commands justified deadly force. The court held that 'deadly force cannot be used simply because a suspect is armed and has ignored commands.' The opinion noted that while an officer need not wait until a gun is pointed at them, there must be a threat with the weapon. The court found it was disputed whether J.R. made a 'furtive or other threatening movement with the weapon.' The only undisputed movement was J.R. turning his head to face Davis in the final moments, which the court found was not a movement that could reasonably be perceived as dangerous. Consequently, the court concluded that a reasonable officer would have recognized no imminent threat existed when an armed suspect was running away without threatening movements. Regarding qualified immunity, the court determined that the right was clearly established. Citing prior Fourth Circuit precedent, the court stated that it was well-known that the failure to obey commands by a person in possession of a weapon only justifies deadly force if that person makes a furtive or other threatening movement with the weapon. Since there was no undisputed evidence that J.R. threatened Davis with his weapon, Davis was not entitled to immunity.
The decision affirms the lower court's denial of qualified immunity, meaning Officer Davis cannot avoid trial on the basis of immunity. The case will proceed to trial or summary judgment on the issue of damages. The ruling reinforces the Fourth Amendment standard that the mere possession of a weapon by a fleeing suspect does not justify deadly force absent a specific, threatening movement with that weapon. It clarifies that officers must assess whether a suspect poses an immediate threat, rather than relying solely on the suspect's armed status or non-compliance with commands.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download