Smith v. Finkley

Ct. of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider defendants-police officers’ interlocutory appeal of Dist. Ct.’s order denying their motion for summary judgment, alleging qualified immunity in plaintiff’s section 1983 action, alleging that defendant’s used excessive force in shooting him three times during their attempt to apprehend plaintiff during intense standoff that occurred after defendants received report that person matching plaintiff’s description had carried gun during fight with third-party. Appeal regarding sufficiency of evidence with respect to denial of qualified immunity is not eligible for interlocutory consideration, and record contained factual disputes as to how much threat plaintiff posed to defendants at time of shooting and how actively he was resisting. Moreover, said factual disputes could not be separated from resolution of whether constitutional right had been violated. Ct. further rejected defendants’ contention that plaintiff’s constitutional claim was not clearly established at time of plaintiff’s arrest, where existing case law allowed defendants to use deadly force only where immediate threat of serious harm to defendants was present. As such, appellate jurisdiction was not proper, where record, when viewed in light most favorable to plaintiff, indicated existence of factual dispute as to whether plaintiff posed immediate threat of serious harm. (Dissent filed.)