SAN FRANCISCO (LN) — A Ninth Circuit panel on Wednesday affirmed summary judgment for Seattle Police Officer Noah Zech in a civil rights lawsuit brought of Shaun Fuhr, ruling that Zech was entitled to qualified immunity because clearly established law did not forbid shooting a fleeing suspect who had fired a gun and was holding an infant.
The dispute stems from an April 2020 incident in which Fuhr, 24, threatened the mother of his one-year-old daughter, fired a handgun in a public park, and fled on foot with the child. Fuhr evaded police for more than 30 minutes, prompting a search that involved a helicopter and Special Weapons and Tactics officers.
The pursuit ended in a residential alley when Zech and another officer encountered Fuhr emerging from behind bushes. Zech fired a single round, striking Fuhr and killing him. Fuhr’s estate sued, alleging excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
U.S. Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown, writing for the majority, declined to decide whether Zech’s actions violated the Fourth Amendment. Instead, the panel held that no case clearly established a constitutional right violated by an officer shooting a noncompliant, fleeing suspect who had previously fired a gun and was holding a child.
“Fuhr’s continued possession of the baby after firing a gun, fleeing from law enforcement, and ignoring commands to stop are factors that, when combined, distinguish this case from clearly established law that sets out a constitutional violation,” McKeown wrote.
The panel distinguished the case from Harris v. Roderick, which barred shooting suspects who do not pose an immediate threat, noting that Fuhr had ignored repeated warnings and presented a potential threat to the infant. The court also rejected comparisons to George v. Morris, where an elderly man with terminal cancer was shot while holding a gun pointed, finding the circumstances “about as far as possible” in George.
U.S. Circuit Judge William A. Fletcher dissented, arguing that the video evidence showed Fuhr posed no immediate threat to the officers or his daughter he was shot.
“Fuhr was walking slowly, holding his daughter tightly against his chest, and could not have used a firearm to harm the officers even if he had one,” Fletcher wrote. “He was never warned that deadly force would be used, and the officer who yelled for him to stop testified that he was not given adequate time to comply before being killed.”
Fletcher noted that Fuhr’s hands were visible and empty, and that he was surrounded by fences and officers, making escape impossible. He argued that clearly established law prohibits shooting to kill unless a suspect presents an immediate threat, a standard he said was not met here.
The panel also affirmed the dismissal of Fuhr’s remaining claims, including negligence, wrongful death, and a claim under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, which the court said lacked evidentiary support.
McKeown was joined by U.S. Circuit Judge Roopali H. Desai.