The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today reversed a lower court finding that Benton police officer Kyle Ellison had acted reasonably when he fatally shot a suicidal teen, Keagan Schweikle, in October 2016.

The district court had ruled that the officer, then-Police Chief Kirk Lane and the city of Benton were entitled to qualified immunity in dismissing the suit. The 8th Circuit recounts the case, brought by the boy’s parents, Piper Partridge and Dominic Schweikle, for themselves and the youth’s estate:

Keagan walked into the woods with a gun. His mother called 911. She said he ingested cough syrup and possibly marijuana, was depressed after being suspended from school earlier that morning, and threatened to shoot himself. She said he was not going to hurt anyone but himself. She repeated these facts to the first officer on the scene, explaining that Keagan was suicidal, walked into the woods with a gun, and (she believed) was going to try to hurt himself. Ellison was dispatched to help with the search. Using a police dog, he found Keagan standing 45 feet away on a riverbank. Ellison told Keagan to show his hands. Keagan turned slightly to his right. Ellison saw a gun in Keagan’s right hand, drew his gun, and ordered Keagan to drop the gun. Without speaking, Keagan instead raised the gun to his right temple. Ellison commanded Keagan to drop the gun “several times.” Keagan remained silent. As Keagan began moving the gun away from his head, Ellison fired three shots. Two hit Keagan, killing him.

Judge Brian Miller dismissed the claim, saying the officer had little choice but to shoot. The 8th Circuit concluded otherwise:

Taking the facts in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in Keagan’s favor, Ellison shot a non-resisting, non-fleeing minor as he moved his gun in compliance with commands to drop his gun. Under these circumstances, no reasonable officer could conclude Keagan posed an immediate threat of serious physical harm. The law was “sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would understand that” shooting an individual in these circumstances is unlawful.

The reversal of the finding on the officer also brought reversal of Miller’s dismissal of the city of Benton and police chief from the case. Further hearings will be held on the circumstances of the shooting and the claim that the city shared liability for lack of training of the officer. The 8th Circuit upheld Miller’s dismissal of individual claims by the boy’s parents for damage to their familial relationship. The officer’s actions weren’t directed at the family relationship, the court said.


The court analyzed where the district court went wrong (citations omitted):

Keagan was not suspected of a crime. He was not actively resisting arrest or attempting to flee. He was, however, armed, suicidal, and under the influence of cough syrup and possibly marijuana. Whether a reasonable officer could conclude he posed an immediate threat depends on the circumstances at the time of the shooting. Taking the facts in the complaint as true, “Keagan simply began to move the gun away from his head,” “was shot as he began to move the gun away from his head, per Ellison’s orders to ‘drop the gun,’” and “never pointed the gun at the officers.” On these facts, no reasonable officer could conclude that a compliant individual posed an immediate threat. The district court concluded it would have “been nearly impossible for Ellison to tell whether Keagan was moving the gun away from his head to comply with Ellison’s order or if he was repositioning the gun to aim it at the officers.” This conclusion does not accept the facts in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Keagan had to move the gun to comply with Ellison’s commands. The complaint does not tell the direction or speed Keagan moved the gun, how far he moved it before Ellison shot him, or the timing of the facts. The complaint does not give Ellison’s views. Based on the complaint, Keagan may have slowly lowered the gun while pointing it in the opposite direction of Ellison. This would be “so obviously an attempt to comply with [Ellison’s] commands to drop the [gun] that a reasonable officer would have known that opening fire would constitute excessive force.” Based on all reasonable inferences, this court cannot conclude Ellison’s actions were objectively reasonable.

The opinion was written by Judge Duane Benton and joined by Judges Bobby Shepherd and Michael Melloy.