Police shootings can be a form of misconduct when law enforcement officers use unjustified or excessive force. The incident's circumstances and its alignment with laws, policies, and training standards regulating police use of force determine whether a particular police shooting amounts to misconduct.

Nevada maintains explicit guidelines and policies governing when and how law enforcement officers should use force. These policies are intentionally crafted to ensure that force is employed solely when necessary to safeguard public safety or the officers' well-being. A breach of these policies that leads to harm or death could serve as grounds for initiating a civil action against the officer involved.

Instances Where Police Officers Could Shoot Suspects

In Nevada, much like in the majority of U.S. states, police officers are authorized to employ their firearms within specific contexts, primarily aimed at self-defense and safeguarding others. Legal statutes, departmental policies, and comprehensive training protocols meticulously govern law enforcement personnel's use of deadly force.

There are two specific situations where officers could discharge their firearms legally:

  1. When faced with an imminent threat to life or serious bodily harm — Law enforcement officers are empowered to use their firearms when they hold a reasonable belief that an immediate danger to their own life or the life of another person exists.
  2. When dealing with fleeing suspects — Under specific circumstances, officers could be authorized to use deadly force against a fleeing suspect if they reasonably believe that the suspect poses a substantial risk of causing death or severe bodily injury to others. However, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Tennessee v. Garner (1985) established that officers typically cannot employ deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing, non-dangerous suspect.

Nevada law also grants law enforcement officers the authority to employ deadly force in specific additional situations, as follows:

  1. Suppressing a riot — In instances where it is imperative to quell a riot or violent civil disturbance to reinstate order and safeguard public safety, police officers in Nevada may resort to deadly force.
  2. Capturing an escaped felon — Law enforcement personnel are empowered to use deadly force when pursuing and attempting to detain an escaped fugitive, particularly if the escapee is deemed dangerous and poses a substantial threat to the public or the officers themselves.
  3. Effecting an arrest — While apprehending a suspect, officers could resort to deadly force if they believe it is necessary to detain a suspect who poses a serious risk to the safety of the officers or other individuals.

  • Acting in Self-Defense or Defense of Others

Both police officers and civilians have the right to protect themselves and others from imminent threats, grounded in the principles of self-defense. In both scenarios, the use of force is deemed lawful under these conditions:

  1. A reasonable belief of threat — The individual, whether a police officer or civilian, must reasonably believe that he/she, or someone else, faces an immediate and grave threat of bodily harm. This perception of imminent danger is a pivotal factor justifying self-defense.
  2. Proportional force — Whether it involves physical or firearm use, the force must align with the threat at hand. Individuals should use only the force necessary to counteract the threat and safeguard themselves or others.

Concerning police shootings, officers undergo training to understand the potentially lethal nature of firearms and the need to use them as a last resort. In situations where officers discharge their firearms in self-defense or defense of others, the following considerations typically come into play:

  1. Use of deadly force — Firearms are lethal weapons. Their use, for example, when firing a gun, is typically reserved for situations involving a severe and immediate threat to life. Police officers are usually trained to aim for center mass (the torso) when using their weapons, not intending to kill but to incapacitate the threat.
  2. Necessity and proportionality — Similar to civilians, an officer's firearm use must be necessary to thwart the threat and commensurate with the danger the aggressor poses. Officers are trained to make rapid decisions based on evaluating the circumstances.

  • Stopping a Fleeing Suspect Who is Dangerous

Police officers are generally allowed to use force, including firing their firearms, when pursuing fleeing criminal suspects, subject to specific conditions. A critical requirement is that the officer must have a reasonable belief, typically based on probable cause, that the suspect threatens public safety or may harm others.

Officers are empowered to use force to apprehend fleeing suspects when they reasonably believe the suspect's escape could cause harm or danger to themselves or the community. This principle balances the necessity of arresting suspects with the requirement to use force judiciously and proportionally.

For example, consider a situation where a police officer responds to an in-progress armed robbery at a convenience store. Upon arrival, the officer observes a suspect fleeing from the store, holding a firearm. The officer notes that the suspect matches the description provided by the store clerk and visibly carries what appears to be a real weapon.

In this scenario, the officer possesses probable cause to suspect that the individual is involved in a significant crime, armed with a firearm, and poses an immediate threat to public safety. The circumstances reasonably suggest that the suspect poses a danger to others.

With probable cause, the officer could be justified in discharging his/her firearm to prevent the suspect from fleeing, primarily to safeguard others from harm. Typically, the officer aims to incapacitate or immobilize the suspect, with lethal force reserved for situations where the threat escalates.

Filing Civil Lawsuits Against Police Officers for an Unlawful Shooting

If you are a victim of an unlawful shooting, you can pursue two lawsuits against police officers. You can file a:

  1. Nevada civil tort claims.
  2. Section 1983 lawsuits in Nevada.

  • Civil Tort Claims

A tort is a wrongful act or a violation of someone's rights, resulting in harm or injury to another person or their property. In tort law, plaintiffs, people who have suffered harm or injury due to the wrongful actions of others, and defendants have the legal right to seek compensation for the damages they have suffered.

In Nevada, plaintiffs can file tort claims against law enforcement agencies and officers. These claims are typically pursued when individuals believe the officers' actions were negligent, reckless, or involved intentional misconduct. These lawsuits aim to secure compensation for the damages that resulted from the incident.

Common tort claims that plaintiffs could bring against law enforcement officers following an unlawful shooting incident include:

  1. Battery — Victims pursue this lawsuit when the shooting inflicts physical injuries or wounds. Battery claims arise when there is substantiated evidence of deliberate or negligent use of force leading to harm.
  2. Intentional infliction of emotional distress — This tort becomes pertinent when the actions of the police are deemed extreme or outrageous. Additionally, these actions should have resulted in severe emotional pain for the victim. This claim centers on the psychological impact that results from the incident.
  3. Wrongful death — This claim applies when the shooting results in the victim's demise. The family or legal representatives of the deceased victim initiate wrongful death suits. They seek compensation for the irreplaceable loss of life.

Note: Civil tort lawsuits primarily aim to secure financial compensation for harm or injury, while criminal cases center around prosecuting individuals for alleged criminal wrongdoing, which can result in various penalties, including imprisonment.

  • Section 1983 Lawsuits

Section 1983 lawsuits are legal actions brought under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, a federal statute that empowers individuals to seek remedies for infringements of their constitutional rights by government officials, including law enforcement officers. These lawsuits are a fundamental means of holding government entities and their agents accountable for actions that infringe upon an individual's civil rights.

Two pivotal elements must be established to prevail in a Section 1983 claim:

  1. Violation of a civil right — The plaintiff must substantiate that his/her civil rights, safeguarded by the U.S. Constitution or federal law, were indeed violated. This typically entails demonstrating that a law enforcement officer deprived them of his/her constitutional rights.
  2. Under color of law — The plaintiff must affirm that the breach of their civil rights was perpetrated by an individual acting "under the color of law." Essentially, the defendant must have acted officially or wielded their authority as a government agent during the alleged violation. This element distinguishes Section 1983 claims from ordinary personal injury claims.

Establishing these two elements is pivotal for a Section 1983 claim to succeed. A successful claim allows plaintiffs to recover remedies when government officials or entities purportedly infringe upon their constitutional rights.

In cases where police shoot a person without legal justification, it could arguably violate the victim's Fourth Amendment rights, which guard against unreasonable searches and seizures. Consequently, victims of police shootings can commence a Section 1983 lawsuit against the implicated police officers, alleging the infringement of their constitutional rights.

Note: Section 1983 claims relate specifically to police officers employed by cities, counties, or states. Should the involved officer be a federal employee, for example, a U.S. marshal, the shooting victim could pursue a Bivens action. A Bivens lawsuit is a federal counterpart to a Section 1983 lawsuit. It offers a legal avenue for seeking remedies when federal employees are accused of violating an individual's constitutional rights.

Civil cases involving police shootings have a two-year statute of limitations for initiating personal injury or Section 1983 lawsuits. This time frame starts from the date of the injury or when the injury reasonably should have been discovered. However, some exceptions can impact the timing of these legal actions.

One significant exception involves the potential to "toll" or temporarily delay the statute of limitations for Section 1983 lawsuits. This delay could occur for several reasons. The courts will assess the reasons as presented by the concerned parties and determine if there is merit to the need for a temporary delay.

Likely Defendants in a Police Shooting Civil Case

Depending on the circumstances and the legal claims involved, victims of a police shooting can bring lawsuits against several parties, including:

  1. Police officer(s) or sheriff's deputy — These are typically the officers directly implicated in the shooting incident and are often named as defendants. They can be personally held responsible for their actions and any resulting damages.
  2. Police chief or sheriff — High-ranking officials within the law enforcement agency, like the police chief or sheriff, could also be named as defendants if there are allegations of their involvement in authorizing or supervising the actions of their officers.
  3. Police department or sheriff's office — The law enforcement agency to which the officers belong could become defendants. This happens if the claims are related to policies, training, or practices that contributed to the incident. Government entities often possess the resources to cover potential damages.
  4. City or county — Depending on the specifics and legal claims, the city or county where the incident occurred could also be named a defendant. This happens when seeking to hold the government financially accountable for the actions of its employees.

When the individual police officer does not have substantial personal assets, plaintiffs and their civil rights attorneys explore suing entities like the police department and the municipality.

These entities often have insurance and financial resources available to cover potential damages. The precise selection of defendants is contingent on the unique circumstances of each case and the legal strategies pursued by the plaintiff and their legal representation.

Damages You Can Recover in a Police Shooting Lawsuit

Police shooting victims who prevail in personal injury and/or Section 1983 lawsuits could receive compensatory damages. These damages aim to restore the victim to their pre-incident state by covering various injury-related expenses, including:

  1. Medical bills — Compensatory damages typically include reimbursement for medical costs incurred due to the shooting, for example, hospital bills, surgeries, rehabilitation, and ongoing medical treatments.
  2. Lost wages — If the victim's injuries led to missed work or reduced earning capacity, compensatory damages can include compensation for lost wages or income.
  3. Pain and suffering — Victims could be compensated for the physical and emotional pain and suffering endured as a result of the shooting incident. This encompasses both physical pain and emotional distress.
  4. Loss of future earnings — In cases where injuries have a lasting impact on the victim's ability to work and earn, compensatory damages could account for the loss of future income or earning potential.

In addition, if the court determines that the police officer's actions were malicious, it can order punitive damages. These serve as both punishment and a deterrent. Punitive damages can be substantial depending on the circumstances, often exceeding three times the compensatory damages.

In Section 1983 lawsuits, plaintiffs could also recover their attorneys' fees. This provision ensures that individuals whose constitutional rights were violated can seek legal representation without financial burden, thus promoting access to justice in civil rights cases.

Possible Defenses in a Police Shooting Case

Two common defenses that police officers often raise in shooting lawsuits, especially those involving claims of excessive force, include:

  • Reasonable Police Actions

Police officers can avoid legal liability for shooting incidents by establishing that their actions are objectively reasonable. These justifiable situations for a police shooting include:

  1. Self-defense — If it appeared that the victim posed an immediate threat of causing death or severe harm to the officer, the officer acted to protect him/herself.
  2. Defense of others — When it appeared that the victim was about to inflict serious harm or kill another person, the officer acted to prevent that harm.
  3. Armed suspect fleeing a crime — If the officer witnessed the victim committing a crime and the victim was armed while attempting to escape.

In these scenarios, even if the victim did not pose a threat, the officer could prevail in a lawsuit by demonstrating that a reasonable person would have acted similarly.

For example, suppose the victim was holding what appeared to be a genuine firearm, even if it turned out to be a toy gun. In that case, a court could absolve the officer if it is determined that a reasonable person in the officer's position would have also believed the gun was real. The critical factor is whether the officer's actions align with what a reasonable person would have deemed appropriate in their circumstances.

  • Qualified Immunity

Qualified immunity is a legal principle that shields government officials, including police officers, from personal liability if their actions do not violate established constitutional rights that a reasonable person should have known about or if they acted in good faith.

Officers could assert qualified immunity as a defense, arguing that even if their actions were mistaken or resulted in harm, they should not be held personally accountable because their behavior did not breach established legal standards.

In these instances, the shooting victim's attorney aims to contest or rebut the presumption of good faith by introducing evidence indicating that the police officer did not act in good faith. Key evidentiary elements include video surveillance recordings and eyewitness statements. This evidence illuminates the officer's conduct and mindset during the incident. They carry significant weight in challenging the presumption of good faith and bolstering the victim's legal position.

Find a Personal Injury Attorney Near Me

Civil action against police officers and other responsible entities for a police shooting incident is complex. However, with the right legal representation, you can improve your odds of securing fair compensation for your losses. Call us, the Las Vegas Personal Injury Attorney Law Firm, at 702-996-1224 and let us work to help you secure the right compensation.