The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued a significant decision affirming the right of law enforcement officers to use deadly force based on an objectively reasonable perception of an immediate threat under the totality of the circumstances. In Handy v. Jones 2026 WL 2716416, the court held that four Anchorage police officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they fatally shot an armed suspect who refused repeated commands to drop his shotgun and continued advancing toward them while waving the weapon overhead. The panel rejected the notion that officers must wait until an armed suspect actually points or levels a firearm at them before responding in self defense. This ruling provides important clarification for California peace officers who frequently confront similar high-risk encounters.
On May 13, 2024, Anchorage police responded to a domestic disturbance involving Kristopher Handy. A neighbor reported hearing a woman screaming followed by a loud impact and what sounded like two gunshots. The neighbor also stated that Handy was outside waiting for police while holding a shotgun. Officers announced their presence and ordered Handy to exit his apartment. Handy emerged carrying the shotgun and repeatedly refused commands to raise his hands and drop the weapon. As he advanced toward the officers, Handy waved the shotgun over his head and cursed at them. Although Handy did not point the shotgun directly at the officers, four officers ultimately fired nine shots killing him. Handy's family filed a section 1983 action alleging excessive force and deprivation of the constitutional right to familial association. The district court denied the officers' motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds finding that a jury could potentially conclude that Handy did not present an immediate threat.
The Ninth Circuit vacated that denial and remanded with instructions to grant qualified immunity. The court explained that "an officer is not required to wait until a suspect actually aims a firearm at the officer before responding in self defense." Handy was suspected of committing a violent crime, was armed with a shotgun, refused repeated commands to drop it, acted belligerently and continued advancing toward the officers while waving the weapon. Although he did not point the shotgun directly at the officers, he could have immediately fired it from the hip. Under these circumstances, the officers reasonably perceived an immediate deadly threat. The court emphasized reliance on the totality of the circumstances rather than isolating the precise moment an officer perceives a threat citing Barnes v. Felix 605 U.S. 73. The decision also drew support from Napouk v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department 123 F.4th 906 and Blanford v. Sacramento County 406 F.3d 1110 recognizing that an armed individual may present an immediate threat without actually pointing the weapon directly at an officer.
Even assuming a constitutional violation, the court held that no clearly established law required officers confronting an armed belligerent individual suspected of a violent crime to wait until the individual aimed his firearm at them. Accordingly the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. This holding reinforces that mere possession of a firearm does not justify deadly force. Rather the combined circumstances including the suspected violent crime, the suspect's refusal to disarm, his belligerent behavior, his advancement toward officers, and his ability to fire the shotgun without raising or aiming it supported the officers' actions.
For public safety unions and their members in California, this decision underscores the critical importance of thoroughly documenting the full set of circumstances surrounding any use of force. Reports, body worn camera footage, dispatch information, the commands given, the suspect's movements, and the distance between the suspect and officers may all prove decisive in defending a subsequent excessive force claim. Officers and agencies should ensure that these details are accurately captured and preserved. The ruling provides a strong foundation for qualified immunity in analogous situations involving armed suspects who refuse to comply and advance while capable of immediately employing a firearm.
This clarification from the Ninth Circuit should help
protect California law enforcement officers from meritless litigation when they
reasonably respond to imminent deadly threats. It aligns with longstanding
principles that reasonableness is judged from the perspective of an officer on
the scene facing tense uncertain and rapidly evolving circumstances. Unions may
wish to incorporate these principles into training and policy discussions to
better support their members facing potential civil rights actions.
