Tenth Circuit Finds Exclusionary Rule Does Not Apply in § 1983 Cases
This case law update was written by Michael J. Sgarlat, an attorney at the law firm of Shaw Bransford & Roth, where he has practiced federal personnel and employment law since 2015. Mr. Sgarlat works with federal employees to respond to proposed disciplinary and adverse actions, and has experience litigating cases before the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board.
On August 11, 2014, Salt Lake City Police Officer Bron Cruz shot and killed Dillon Taylor. That evening, Officer Cruz responded to a radio transmission from dispatch, reporting that an individual “flashed a gun” at an intersection and was accompanied by two others. Officer Cruz identified three individuals that matched dispatch’s description and called for backup. The three suspects (Dillon Taylor, Jerrail Taylor, and Adam Thayne) walked into a 7-Eleven.
When they exited the establishment, Officer Cruz and two other officers confronted the suspects, and ordered them to stop and show their hands. Thayne and Jerrail Taylor complied, but Dillon Taylor kept walking away from the officers. Two of the officers had their guns pointed at Taylor as he walked away.
After he started walking, Taylor appeared to pull up his pants, and continued to make similar motions. His hands were located in the front of his waistband. Officer Cruz told Taylor to get his hands out, and Taylor turned around and faced Officer Cruz. Taylor then started walking backwards, and moved his hands in a “digging” motion. Officer Cruz told Taylor to get his hands out again, and Taylor responded, “Nah, fool.”
Officer Cruz started to order Taylor to remove his hands a third time, when Taylor “rapidly” removed his hands from his waistband. Officer Cruz found Taylor’s movement to be consistent with drawing a gun, placed his finger on the trigger, and shot Taylor twice in the chest. Taylor was ultimately found to be unarmed. After the shooting, Jerrail Taylor and Thayne were detained and interviewed extensively for more than five hours.
Taylor’s estate commenced a civil action in district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting claims against the City and Officer Cruz. The court dismissed the estate’s claims against Officer Cruz, except for the claim of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. The court also found that Officer Cruz was entitled to qualified immunity and granted summary judgment.
The estate presented two issues on appeal. First, they argued that the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule precludes the use of Jerrail Taylor and Thayne’s statements to the police in resolving the lawsuit. Second, they contended that the district court erred by finding Officer Cruz’s actions objectively reasonable, and thus, constitutional under the Fourth Amendment.
The court started with the estate’s argument that the exclusionary rule should apply in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The Tenth Circuit had not previously addressed this issue. However, the court noted that several sister circuits have, and uniformly concluded that the exclusionary rule does not apply in § 1983 cases.
The Fourth Amendment, itself, is silent as to what repercussions should follow a violation of a Fourth Amendment right, and courts crafted the exclusionary rule so that “evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in a criminal proceeding against the victim of the illegal search and seizure.” The court described the goal of the exclusionary rule to be a deterrent to future unlawful police conduct, and that this objective is not met by utilizing it in a § 1983 claim. As a result, the court rejected the estate’s first challenge, and held that the exclusionary rule does not apply to § 1983 cases.
The court turned to the estate’s second argument, and held that based on the totality of the circumstances, Officer Cruz was entitled to qualified immunity because his decision to shoot Taylor was reasonable. The court explained that a defendant officer’s assertion of qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 results in a “presumption of immunity,” and that a plaintiff can only overcome this presumption by showing: “(1) the officers’ alleged conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) it was clearly established at the time of the violation.” The court found that the estate could not overcome the first prong here.
The court stated that to prove a violation of constitutional right, the estate was required to prove that the force here was objectively unreasonable. The court looked at the three factors used by the Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor to make this determination – “(1) the severity of the crime at issue; (2) whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others; and (3) whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.”
The court stated that the first and third factors favor the estate. For the first factor, the officers were responding to a report that an individual “flashed a gun,” not that he threatened anyone. For the third factor, when the officers approached Taylor, they did not have probable cause to make an arrest and they reasonably could not have intended to make an arrest. However, the court noted that the second factor is the most important, and that factor weighed in favor of Officer Cruz. The court found that when Officer Cruz discharged his gun, he reasonably perceived that Taylor posed an immediate threat to his safety or the safety of others. Ultimately, the court found that Officer Cruz acted reasonably even if he had tragically mistaken the facts leading to him shooting Taylor.
Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court properly granted Officer Cruz qualified immunity and entered judgment in his favor (and the City’s favor).
Read the full case: Estate of Taylor v. Salt Lake City
For over thirty years, Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C. has provided superior representation on a wide range of federal employment law issues, from representing federal employees nationwide in administrative investigations, disciplinary and performance actions, and Bivens lawsuits, to handling security clearance adjudications and employment discrimination cases.