Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 11-18-2018
Case Style:
Craig Strand v. Curtis Minchuk
Case Number: 181514
Judge: Scudder
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on appeal from the Northern District of Inidana (Lake County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: Darnail Lyles
Defendant's Attorney: Matthew S Clark, Elizabeth A Knight, Joseph W Smith, Jenna K Throw
Description:
We consider whether the district
court erred at summary judgment in denying qualified immunity
to a police officer who, in the context of an argument
and fist fight over parking tickets, shot a semi‐truck driver.
The officer fired the shot after the driver stopped fighting,
stepped back from the officer, and—with his hands in the
air—twice said “I surrender.” The district court concluded
that a material question of fact existed as to whether the driver
2 No. 18‐1514
continued to pose a threat at the exact moment the officer fired
the shot.
We affirm. We cannot read the facts in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff and, on the record as it presently
stands, conclude as a matter of law that the officer is entitled
to qualified immunity. Doing so would mark a stark departure
from clearly established law regarding an officer’s use of
deadly force. A trial is necessary to determine the precise
timeline and circumstances leading to and surrounding the
officer’s deployment of such force.
I
A
Our retelling of the facts tracks the district court’s account
at summary judgment. See Estate of Clark v. Walker, 865 F.3d
544, 547 (7th Cir. 2017).
Craig Strand drives an 18‐wheeler. On May 20, 2013, he
stopped in Merrillville, Indiana, to take a mandatory drug
screening test. Unable to find parking at the drug‐testing facility,
Strand received permission to park his rig outside a
nearby Planned Parenthood office.
Curtis Minchuk, a police officer with the Town of
Merrillville, was working security at Planned Parenthood the
same day. He did so in uniform with authorization from the
Town. Upon reporting to work, Minchuk noticed a semi‐truck
parked in the lot. Unable to find the driver, he wrote two
parking tickets and left them on the truck’s windshield.
Upon returning to his truck, Strand found the tickets and
went into Planned Parenthood to ask about them. An employee
directed Strand to meet a police officer by his truck.
No. 18‐1514 3
Strand tried to discuss the tickets with Officer Minchuk, explaining
that he did not see any no‐parking signs in the lot,
and also had received permission to park there. Minchuk had
no interest in discussing the tickets beyond, as the district
court observed, allegedly soliciting a bribe from Strand. After
Strand declined to pay, Minchuk drove to the back of the
Planned Parenthood facility.
Strand started his rig, but before driving away used his
cell phone to take pictures of the parking lot, thinking he
might need them to show the absence of no‐parking signs to
contest the tickets. Observing from a distance, Officer
Minchuk returned to the truck and ordered Strand to leave
immediately. Strand said he would leave as soon as he
finished taking pictures. Minchuk responded by saying he
was calling a tow truck and telling Strand he had two minutes
to leave.
The situation then escalated. Stepping toward Strand,
Officer Minchuk admonished, “I told you to get the f*** outta
here,” and slapped Strand’s cell phone to the ground.
Minchuk then demanded Strand’s identification; Strand
refused and countered by demanding Minchuk’s badge
number. Minchuk replied, “I said, give me your I.D.” and
grabbed Strand by his shirt and neck, resulting in Strand’s
shirt tearing off his body. Minchuk attempted to push and
tackle Strand to the ground, with Strand resisting by holding
on to Minchuk’s arm.
At that point, both men fell to the ground, with Strand
then punching Minchuk at least three times in the face and
placing his hands on Minchuk’s throat. Minchuk testified that
this caused him to see stars, to feel as if he would pass out,
4 No. 18‐1514
and to fear for his life. He worried that, if he passed out,
Strand would take his gun and shoot him.
The fist fight ceased when Strand stood up, backed four to
six feet away from Officer Minchuk, put his hands up, and
said, “I surrender. Do whatever you think you need to do. I
surrender, I’m done.” While still on the ground, Minchuk responded
by removing his gun from its holster and firing a
shot at Strand, striking him in the abdomen. Strand survived
the gunshot wound. (In a subsequent proceeding in Indiana
state court, Strand was convicted of committing felony battery
of a police officer.)
B
Strand brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Officer
Minchuk and the Town of Merrillville for the use of excessive
force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The defendants
moved for summary judgment, contending that undisputed
facts showed that Officer Minchuk could have reasonably believed
Strand was not subdued—and therefore continued to
present a danger—at the moment Minchuk chose to use
deadly force. The defendants further argued that regardless
of the district court’s ruling on the merits of the excessive
force claim, Minchuk was entitled to qualified immunity.
The district court denied the Town and Minchuk’s motion
for summary judgment, concluding that a material fact
remains unresolved and contested between the parties:
whether sufficient time passed upon Strand’s surrender to
result in Strand being “subdued prior to Officer Minchuk’s
use of deadly force.” Putting the same point another way, the
district court determined that Strand’s substantive Fourth
Amendment claim and Officer Minchuk’s corresponding
No. 18‐1514 5
request for qualified immunity could not be resolved on
summary judgment because the record leaves “unclear
whether the rapidly‐evolving nature of the altercation
justified Officer Minchuk’s use of force, or whether he had
time to recalibrate the degree of force necessary, in light of
plaintiff’s statement of surrender.”
In emphasizing that these questions could not be answered
on summary judgment, the district court was able to
make the limited observation that, “[a]t some point at the start
of the physical altercation Officer Minchuk called for assistance
over his radio.” The court further observed that twentyone
seconds passed from Minchuk’s radio call for backup to
the report of the shooting, which the record shows came from
a Planned Parenthood employee who called 911.
Officer Minchuk now appeals, urging us to reverse the district
court’s denial of qualified immunity.
II
A
We begin, as we must, by evaluating our jurisdiction over
Officer Minchuk’s appeal. Although the denial of summary
judgment ordinarily does not constitute an appealable final
order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the collateral‐order doctrine affords
an exception for a denial of qualified immunity. See
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985); Thompson v. Cope,
900 F.3d 414, 419 (7th Cir. 2018).
The Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S.
304 (1995) teaches that the exception is not absolute, however.
Immediate appeal is available only if we can evaluate the denial
of qualified immunity as a legal matter. See id. at 319–20.
Here that requires us to view the facts as the district court did
6 No. 18‐1514
in ruling on Officer Minchuk’s motion for summary judgment—
in the light most favorable to Strand as the plaintiff
and non‐moving party. See Jones v. Clark, 630 F.3d 677, 680
(7th Cir. 2011). Only then do we evaluate the constitutionality
of Officer Minchuk’s conduct. See Thompson, 900 F.3d at 419–
20; Jones, 630 F.3d at 680–81.
In answering whether a police officer is entitled to qualified
immunity as a matter of law, we must avoid resolving
contested factual matters. See Gutierrez v. Kermon, 722 F.3d
1003, 1011 (7th Cir. 2013); Weinmann v. McClone, 787 F.3d 444,
446 (7th Cir. 2015) (“An appeal from a ruling on qualified immunity
is not the time for the resolution of disputed facts.”).
If we detect a “back‐door effort” to contest facts on appeal, we
lack jurisdiction. Jones, 630 F.3d at 680; see also Gutierrez, 722
F.3d at 1010 (reiterating limits of appellate jurisdiction over
appeal from denial of qualified immunity and stating that a
party “effectively pleads himself out of court by interposing
disputed factual issues in his argument”).
Aware of this jurisdictional limitation, Officer Minchuk
emphasizes that he is not contesting any facts and indeed, for
purposes of this appeal, accepts them in the light most favorable
to Strand as the non‐moving party. We take him at his
word and proceed to evaluate whether Officer Minchuk is entitled
to qualified immunity as a matter of law. See Jones, 630
F.3d at 680 (“In a collateral‐order appeal like this one, where
the defendants say that they accept the plaintiff’s version of
the facts, we will take them at their word and consider their
legal arguments in that light.”); Knox v. Smith, 342 F.3d 651,
656–57 (7th Cir. 2003) (following the same approach).
In traveling this path, we cannot retreat from our obligation
to avoid trying to answer (as a factual matter) the
No. 18‐1514 7
question the district court emphasized remains unresolved:
whether enough time went by between Strand’s surrender
and Minchuk’s use of deadly force such that Strand was subdued
at the moment Minchuk fired the shot. The Supreme
Court has underscored the necessity for this exact discipline
in this exact context—appellate review of a denial of qualified
immunity on summary judgment. See Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S.
Ct. 1861, 1868 (2014) (“By weighing the evidence and reaching
factual inferences contrary to Tolan’s competent evidence, the
court below neglected to adhere to the fundamental principle
that at the summary judgment stage, reasonable inferences
should be drawn in favor of the non‐moving party.”).
B
In evaluating Officer Minchuk’s entitlement to qualified
immunity, we undertake the twofold inquiry of asking
whether his conduct violated a constitutional right, and
whether that right was clearly established at the time of the
alleged violation. See District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct.
577, 589 (2018). We are free to choose which prong to address
first. See Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S. Ct. 808, 812 (2009).
The first prong of the inquiry, whether Officer Minchuk
used excessive force and thereby violated Strand’s Fourth
Amendment rights, is governed by the Supreme Court’s decisions
in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) and Graham v.
Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). The law requires an assessment of
the totality of the facts and circumstances and a “careful balancing
of the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s
Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing
governmental interests at stake.” See Plumhoff v. Rickard,
134 S. Ct. 2012, 2020 (2014) (quoting Graham, 490 U.S. at 396).
At a more specific level, we owe “careful attention” to “the
8 No. 18‐1514
severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an
immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and
whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade
arrest by flight.” Graham, 490 U.S. at 396.
The proper inquiry is one of “objective” reasonableness
that proceeds without regard to the subjective “intent or motivation”
of the officer. Id. at 397. To be sure, the “calculus of
reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police
officers are often forced to make split‐second judgments—
in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—
about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular
situation.” Id. at 396–97. So, too, however, have we cautioned
that “[w]hen an officer faces a situation in which he
could justifiably shoot, he does not retain the right to shoot at
any time thereafter with impunity.” Ellis v. Wynalda, 999 F.2d
243, 247 (7th Cir. 1993). After all “[t]he circumstances might
materially change,” for “[e]ven though an officer may in one
moment confront circumstances in which he could constitutionally
use deadly force, that does not necessarily mean he
may still constitutionally use deadly force the next moment.”
See Horton v. Pobjecky, 883 F.3d 941, 950 (7th Cir. 2018).
If the facts and circumstances show that an individual
who once posed a threat has become “subdued and complying
with the officer’s orders,” the officer may not continue to
use force. See Johnson v. Scott, 576 F.3d 658, 660 (7th Cir. 2009).
And that is especially so when it comes to the use of deadly
force: “[A] person has a right not to be seized through the use
of deadly force unless he puts another person (including a police
officer) in imminent danger or he is actively resisting arrest
and the circumstances warrant that degree of force.”
Weinmann, 787 F.3d at 448. As the Supreme Court succinctly
No. 18‐1514 9
stated in Garner, “[a] police officer may not seize an unarmed,
nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead.” 471 U.S. at 11.
Wherever “feasible,” moreover, the officer should give a
warning before deploying deadly force. Id. at 12.
For the law to be clearly established—the second prong of
the qualified immunity analysis—the “existing precedent
must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond
debate.” Ashcroft v. al‐Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011). The
necessary starting point is to define the right at issue with
specificity. See Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148, 1153 (2018).
Indeed, the Supreme Court has “’repeatedly told courts … not
to define clearly established law at a high level of generality,’
since doing so avoids the crucial question whether the official
acted reasonably in the particular circumstances he or she
faced.” Rickard, 134 S. Ct. at 2023 (quoting al‐Kidd, 563 U.S. at
742); see also Kisela, 138 S. Ct. at 1153 (emphasizing importance
of defining clearly established law with specificity in
the excessive force context).
The demand for specificity is not unyielding or bereft of
balance. Assessing whether the law is clearly established does
not require locating “a case directly on point.” Kisela, 138 S.
Ct. at 1152. Law enforcement officers, the Court has stressed,
“can still be on notice that their conduct violates established
law even in novel factual circumstances.” Hope v. Pelzer, 536
U.S. 730, 741 (2002).
C
Whether we approach Officer Minchuk’s request for qualified
immunity by first assessing the merits of Strand’s claim
or instead by evaluating whether Minchuk’s conduct violated
clearly established law, we come to the same barrier: we
10 No. 18‐1514
cannot—as we must—view the facts in Strand’s favor and
conclude as a matter of law that Minchuk is entitled to qualified
immunity on summary judgment.
Officer Minchuk resorted to the use of deadly force at a
time when Strand had stopped fighting, separated from
Minchuk, stood up, stepped four to six feet away from
Minchuk, and, with his hands in the air, said, “I surrender. Do
whatever you think you need to do. I surrender, I’m done.”
The record shows that Strand was unarmed at all points in
time. Furthermore, upon standing, raising his hands, and
voicing his surrender, Strand never stepped toward Minchuk,
made a threatening statement, or otherwise did anything to
suggest he may resume fighting or reach for a weapon.
Recall, too, the broader circumstances that led to the
shooting. The police were not in hot pursuit of an individual
known to be armed and dangerous. Nor had the police responded
to a report of violent crime or otherwise arrived at a
location only to find an individual engaged in violent or menacing
conduct or acting so unpredictably as to convey a threat
to anyone present.
To the contrary, the entire fracas leading to Officer
Minchuk’s use of deadly force began with his issuance of
parking tickets. After Strand declined to make an on‐the‐spot
cash payment and instead sought to take pictures to show the
absence of no‐parking signs, Officer Minchuk allowed the
situation to escalate and boil over by slapping Strand’s cell
phone to the ground and then tearing Strand’s shirt from his
body. The fist fight then ensued, with Strand choosing to stop
throwing punches and stand up and offer his express
surrender, including by raising his hands above his head. It
was then—with no direction to Strand to keep his hands in
No. 18‐1514 11
the air, to fall to his knees, or to lay on the ground—that
Officer Minchuk drew his gun and fired the shot.
A reasonable jury could find that Officer Minchuk violated
Strand’s constitutional right to remain free of excessive force.
On these facts and circumstances, considered collectively and
in the light most favorable to Strand, Strand no longer posed
an immediate danger to Officer Minchuk at the time he fired
the shot. The Fourth Amendment does not sanction an officer—
without a word of warning—shooting an unarmed offender
who is not fleeing, actively resisting, or posing an immediate
threat to the officer or the public. See Garner, 471 U.S.
at 11 (“A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous
suspect by shooting him dead.”).
The district court correctly observed that additional fact
finding was necessary to determine whether “the rapidlyevolving
nature of the altercation” justified Officer Minchuk’s
use of deadly force or whether “he had time to recalibrate the
degree of force necessary, in light of [Strand’s] statement of
surrender.” This fact finding cannot occur on summary judgment
(or appeal), so we cannot conclude that the district court
committed error in determining a genuine issue of material
fact prevented a resolution of the merits of Strand’s claim.
Officer Minchuk urges a contrary conclusion. He argues
that Strand’s “sudden and unexpected gesture of surrender,”
after having just finished beating Officer Minchuk about the
face and head while pressing down on Officer Minchuk’s
throat, proves as a matter of law that a reasonable officer
could have believed the use of deadly force was objectively
warranted to prevent Strand from inflicting additional serious
harm. Officer Minchuk goes even further, contending that
“[t]here is no dispute in this case that [Strand], who was
12 No. 18‐1514
standing over Officer Minchuk just a few feet away from him
completely unrestrained, was not subdued at the time that
Officer Minchuk deployed deadly force.”
Factual disputes do not resolve on the force of say so, however.
What Officer Minchuk sees as undisputed—whether
Strand continued to pose a threat at the moment Minchuk deployed
deadly force—is actually unresolved and indeed vigorously
contested by Strand. For Minchuk to prevail at this
stage, the record must show that he fired while Strand still
posed a threat. Instead, the record shows that Strand had
backed away, voiced his surrender, and up to five, ten, or fifteen
seconds may have elapsed while Strand stood with his
hands in the air. And that is why the district court rightly determined,
after a close and careful analysis of the record, that
Minchuk was not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter
of law at summary judgment on the merits of Strand’s claim.
This same factual dispute also prevents us from concluding,
as Officer Minchuk urges, that Strand’s clearly established
constitutional rights were not violated, the second
prong of the qualified immunity inquiry. We analyze whether
precedent squarely governs the facts at issue, mindful that we
cannot define clearly established law at too high a level of
generality. Yet we can look at the facts only with as much
specificity as the summary judgment record allows.
It is beyond debate that a person has a right to be free of
deadly force “unless he puts another person (including a police
officer) in imminent danger or he is actively resisting arrest
and the circumstances warrant that degree of force.”
Weinmann, 787 F.3d at 448; see also Becker v. Elfreich, 821 F.3d
920, 928 (7th Cir. 2016) (emphasizing that it is “well‐established
that police officers cannot continue to use force once a
No. 18‐1514 13
suspect is subdued”). But the district court could not determine
whether—at the point Minchuk used deadly force—
Strand posed an imminent harm to Officer Minchuk. The record
left unclear precisely how much time went by from the
moment the fist fight stopped to the moment Officer Minchuk
pulled the trigger.
All the record shows is that twenty‐one seconds passed
between Officer Minchuk radioing for assistance and the police
department receiving the 911 call from the Planned
Parenthood employee who reported the shooting. However
much time elapsed between the end of the fighting and the
gunshot had to be enough for Strand to bring the ground
brawl to an end, to stand up and step back four to six feet, and
then to raise his arms and say to Officer Minchuk, “I surrender.
Do whatever you think you need to do. I surrender, I’m
done.” Perhaps all of this took ten seconds. Or perhaps it took
seven seconds or maybe fifteen. At some point, though,
enough time may have passed that it would have been objectively
unreasonable for Officer Minchuk to continue to believe
that he was in imminent danger. But, as the district court observed,
the record at this stage does not answer whether
Strand continued to pose a threat when Minchuk fired. And
this is the hurdle—the unresolved material question of fact—
that Officer Minchuk cannot clear on summary judgment.
Officer Minchuk points to our decision in Johnson v. Scott,
576 F.3d 658 (7th Cir. 2009), which he sees as “controlling and
dispositive in this case,” to contend that there is no way to
conclude that he violated clearly established law in using
deadly force in the circumstances he faced here. Read fairly,
however, Johnson lends little support to Officer Minchuk, at
least at the summary judgment stage. Facts matter, and the
14 No. 18‐1514
facts of Johnson were quite different. The crimes leading to arrest
in Johnson were severe—a shooting and then reckless
flight in a car and by foot from the police. See 576 F.3d at 660.
The suspect had “used every method at his disposal to flee”
but encountered a fence “too high for him to jump over.” Id.
At that point, cornered, he put his hands up in the air and attempted
to surrender, just as the officer, in a split‐second reaction,
deployed force on the suspect. Id. at 659. Critical to the
court’s decision that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity
was that “it could not have been more than one second
between [the suspect’s] surrender and the use of force by
[the officer].” Id. at 660.
The contrast is clear: Strand’s confrontation with Officer
Minchuk involved no high‐speed car and foot chase, no report
of a violent crime, and no reason to believe an offender
was armed. Far from undermining the clearly established law
that the use of deadly force against a person posing no risk of
imminent harm is unreasonable, Johnson underscores that the
circumstances of the surrender and the timeline surrounding
the use of force are critical. And here, unlike in Johnson, the
circumstances are unclear such that we cannot discern with
any confidence whether Strand continued to pose a threat to
Officer Minchuk.
The clearly established law comes from cases in which we
have emphasized that a subdued suspect has the right not to
be seized by deadly force. See, e.g., Weinmann, 787 F.3d at 448;
see also Becker, 821 F.3d at 929 (upholding a denial of qualified
immunity where an officer used force on a suspect who was
not fleeing, was out in the open, and had surrendered with his
hands above his head); Miller v. Gonzalez, 761 F.3d 822, 829
(7th Cir. 2014) (holding that an officer was not entitled to
No. 18‐1514 15
qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage where, at
the point the officer used force, the suspect was visible to the
officer and “had been motionless for upwards of ten seconds”).
Weinmann also instructs that a dispute of fact regarding
the circumstances surrounding an officer’s use of force may
prevent us from determining whether an individual’s clearly
established rights have been violated. 787 F.3d at 451. There
the summary judgment record left unresolved whether a suicidal
man with a gun presented an immediate threat to an officer
who arrived on the scene. See id. at 448. Under one version
of the facts, the officer’s use of force would have been
reasonable; under another, clearly established law would
have made it unreasonable. See id. at 449−50. And it was this
uncertainty as to a material fact that “preclude[d] a ruling on
qualified immunity” on summary judgment. Id. at 451.
We chart the same course here. The existence of the
substantial factual dispute about the circumstances and
timing surrounding Minchuk’s decision to shoot Strand
precludes a ruling on qualified immunity at this point. This is
not to foreclose the availability of qualified immunity to
Officer Minchuk at trial. At trial a jury may resolve these
disputed facts in Officer Minchuk’s favor, and the district
court could then determine he is entitled to qualified
immunity as matter of law. See Warlick v. Cross, 969 F.2d 303,
305 (7th Cir. 1992) (“When the issue of qualified immunity
remains unresolved at the time of trial, as was the case here,
the district court may properly use special interrogatories to
allow the jury to determine disputed issues of fact upon
which the court can base its legal determination of qualified
16 No. 18‐1514
immunity.”). But we cannot make such a determination at this
stage on this record.
Outcome: For these reasons, we AFFIRM.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: