In September 2016, Tulsa Police Officer Betty Shelby shot and killed Terence Crutcher, an unarmed Black man, during a traffic stop. Crutcher was walking toward Shelby's patrol car with his hands raised after she ordered him to do so. The administrator of Crutcher's estate, Michael Manning, sued Shelby for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and brought Monell claims against the City of Tulsa alleging unconstitutional policies regarding training, hiring, and discipline. The district court dismissed the Monell claims for failure to state a claim and granted summary judgment to Shelby based on qualified immunity, concluding the right was not clearly established. The district court then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law wrongful death claim against the City. The Estate appealed both the qualified immunity ruling and the dismissal of the Monell claims.
The Tenth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Moritz, first addressed the excessive force claim against Officer Shelby. The court emphasized that at the summary judgment stage, it must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Estate, accepting the Estate's version of disputed facts. The court found that the helicopter video did not clearly contradict the Estate's assertion that Crutcher kept his hands raised and did not lower his arms before being shot. Applying the Graham factors and the Larsen factors for deadly force, the court determined that Crutcher posed no immediate threat. He was unarmed, the crime was a non-violent misdemeanor, and he was not actively resisting arrest. Consequently, the court held that Shelby's use of deadly force was objectively unreasonable. Next, the court addressed whether this right was clearly established. The district court had erred by defining the right too narrowly, essentially requiring a case with identical facts. The Tenth Circuit clarified that officers are on notice when they shoot an unarmed, nonthreatening suspect. Citing precedent such as Tennessee v. Garner, Zuchel v. Spinharney, and Walker v. City of Orem, the court concluded that a reasonable officer would have known that shooting a suspect who is unarmed, nonthreatening, and complying with commands violates the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, Shelby was not entitled to qualified immunity. Regarding the Monell claims against the City of Tulsa, the court affirmed the dismissal. To succeed, the Estate needed to allege a policy or custom of deliberate indifference that caused the constitutional violation. The court found the Estate's allegations regarding failure to train, failure to screen, and failure to investigate or discipline were insufficient. For failure to train, the Estate failed to allege a pattern of similar violations or show that the lack of training was a plainly obvious consequence. For failure to screen, the court held that prior incidents of violence in an officer's background, without resulting convictions or physical injury, did not make the deprivation of a third party's rights a plainly obvious consequence of hiring. Finally, regarding discipline, the court noted that a failure to discipline after the fact cannot cause the violation, and general allegations of a 'code of silence' without specific evidence of prior excessive force complaints were too speculative to state a claim.
The decision allows the Estate's federal excessive force claim against Officer Shelby to proceed to trial, removing the shield of qualified immunity. However, the City of Tulsa remains immune from federal liability for its policies and practices under Monell. On remand, the district court must decide whether to retain the state-law wrongful death claim against the City, as the basis for declining supplemental jurisdiction (the absence of federal claims) no longer exists. The ruling reinforces that officers cannot use deadly force against unarmed, nonthreatening individuals, even in novel factual circumstances, provided the right is defined at an appropriate level of generality.