Deering v. Reich
183 F.3d 645 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1999
Facts
Reinhold Deering, a 69-year-old man with a history of mental health issues, lived alone on a farm in Oconto County, Wisconsin. He was charged with misdemeanor property damage after backing his vehicle into a motorcycle and refusing to pay for spilled gasoline. After Deering failed to appear in court, a bench warrant for his arrest was issued. Around 11 p.m. on January 31, 1995, three Shawano County deputy sheriffs decided to serve the warrant, notifying the Oconto County Sheriff's department. Arriving at Deering's farm around 12:45 a.m., they approached the house, saw Deering sleeping, and then knocked on his back door. Deering emerged with a 16-gauge shotgun and fired a shot in Deputy Wizner's direction, leading Deputy Reich to believe Wizner was hit. Reich then fired 11 rounds at Deering, killing him with two shots to the back.
Procedural history
Walter Deering, as personal representative of Reinhold Deering's estate, filed a civil suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging unreasonable force and due process violations. The district court dismissed all claims except the excessive force claim against Deputy Reich on summary judgment. A trial was held on the remaining claim, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Deputy Reich, which the plaintiff appealed.
Issue
The primary issue is whether alleged errors in jury instructions and evidentiary rulings at trial, concerning the evaluation of Deputy Reich's use of force under the "totality of the circumstances," warrant setting aside the jury's verdict. Specifically, the court considers whether "preseizure" conduct and the nature of the underlying crime are relevant to a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim.
Holding
The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that while some jury instructions and evidentiary rulings were restrictive, they did not constitute reversible error. The jury was adequately informed to consider the totality of the circumstances and had a sufficient basis to evaluate the deputy's response.
Rule
Excessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment are judged by an objective reasonableness standard, requiring a careful balancing of the intrusion against governmental interests. Reasonableness is determined by the "totality of the circumstances," including information known to the officer prior to and at the immediate time of the shooting, and evaluated from the officer's perspective without hindsight. This "totality" includes the time and manner of warrant execution, and the severity of the underlying crime, as these factors inform the governmental interest at stake. While officers are not required to use all feasible alternatives to avoid a deadly force situation, police conduct that creates or escalates a threat can be relevant to the reasonableness inquiry.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.