Twenty-Seven Seconds at the Transit Platform
Two officers respond to a report of a man with a knife at a downtown bus platform at 6:40 p.m. Body camera shows Officer Grant arriving alone, drawing her weapon, and shouting commands. The man, age 19, does not comply, advances two steps toward her, then turns and begins walking toward a group of about 15 waiting passengers roughly 30 feet away, knife still in hand. Twenty-seven seconds after her arrival, at a distance of about 22 feet, Grant fires three rounds, striking him twice; he dies at the scene. Officer Ruiz arrived as the shots were fired; a Taser was on Ruiz's belt but was never deployed. Grant later states she feared for the crowd. The man's family says he had untreated schizophrenia. The department's policy requires de-escalation when feasible and a warning before deadly force when feasible. The chief has ordered an internal review and the family has filed a federal suit.
1. Apply the constitutional standard for use of force to these facts. Why does the suspect's retreat not automatically make the shooting unlawful?
Read the worked answer
The governing standard is Graham v. Connor (1989): objective reasonableness judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, without the 20/20 vision of hindsight, and allowing for split-second judgments. The enumerated factors are the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting or attempting to evade arrest by flight. The threat factor dominates.
Tennessee v. Garner (1985) limits deadly force against a fleeing suspect to situations where the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. A suspect who is walking away is fleeing, but Garner is not a rule that a retreating back ends the analysis. If the man is carrying a knife and walking toward fifteen people who do not know he is armed, a reasonable officer could conclude he poses an immediate threat to them. Scott v. Harris (2007) confirms that a threat to bystanders can justify force that endangers the suspect.
The defense's problem is different: 22 feet, a 27-second encounter, no attempt to warn, and a Taser in the second officer's possession. Those facts go to whether less lethal options were reasonably available, not to whether a threat existed. The lawfulness question and the tactics question are distinct.
2. Will qualified immunity likely bar the family's damages claim? Explain the two-part inquiry and the specificity requirement.
Read the worked answer
Qualified immunity asks (1) whether the officer violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the conduct. Either prong may be resolved first, and a defendant prevails if the answer to either is no. The court does not need to decide prong one if prong two fails.
Specificity is where these cases turn. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that Graham and Garner are too general to clearly establish the answer in a novel fact pattern; the plaintiff needs a case with closely analogous facts. City of Tahlequah v. Bond (2021) is the recent illustration: the Court reversed a denial of immunity where officers shot a man who was holding a hammer and appeared to be reaching for a weapon, holding that the existing cases did not clearly establish a violation on those facts.
Applied here: a knife-armed, non-compliant man walking toward a crowd is closer to the facts in which courts have granted immunity than to a case involving a subdued or unarmed suspect. Even if a jury could find the force excessive under Graham, the officer has a strong immunity argument, and the case may end at summary judgment. The family's viable route is to find a closely analogous circuit precedent involving a retreating, mentally ill suspect and a failure to warn or use less lethal force. Immunity, if granted, ends the damages claim; it does not end the internal review.
3. How should the internal review proceed, and how does it differ from the constitutional analysis? Explain the *Garrity* constraint and the relevance of the de-escalation policy.
Read the worked answer
The internal review runs on a different track from the lawsuit, and the two must not be conflated.
- Different standard. The administrative question is whether Grant complied with department policy; the constitutional question is whether a reasonable officer would have acted as she did. Conduct can be constitutional and still violate a policy that requires de-escalation when feasible and a warning before deadly force when feasible. The chief should state in writing which standard each finding addresses.
- Different fact-finders. A board or supervisor finds facts on a preponderance standard; a jury applies Graham. A "not sustained" administrative finding is not a finding that the force was constitutional, and a "within policy" finding is not a defense to a civil claim.
- Garrity. If Grant is ordered to answer questions under threat of termination, Garrity v. New Jersey (1967) bars the use of those compelled statements in a later criminal prosecution. The department can still use them administratively. The chief should decide early whether the questions are administrative only and say so on the record.
- Loudermill. Before any discipline that deprives her of a property interest in employment,
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill
requires notice and an opportunity to respond.
- Ruiz. The second officer's failure to deploy the Taser and any duty to intervene raise separate questions of policy compliance and, depending on the circuit, potential bystander liability.
The written review should also address the pre-shooting tactics-arriving alone, closing distance, and the absence of any attempt to contain the platform.