Establishing Genuine Disputes Over Imminence: Deadly Force & Qualified Immunity under the Fourth Amendment

Introduction

Estate of Patrick Harmon, Sr. v. Salt Lake City (10th Cir. Apr. 22, 2025) presents a critical Fourth Amendment confrontation over an officer’s use of deadly force and the scope of qualified immunity at the summary‐judgment stage. Patrick Harmon, Sr. was stopped on a bicycle by Salt Lake City police for a traffic offense. Upon discovering an outstanding felony warrant, officers attempted to arrest him. Harmon broke free, fled on foot, and—according to one officer—appeared to reach for a knife in his waistband. When he “turned sideways” and allegedly threatened to slice or stab, Officer Clinton Fox, at roughly five to seven feet away, fired three rounds, killing Harmon. The Estate and Harmon’s heirs sued Fox and Salt Lake City for excessive force. After the district court granted summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that genuine disputes of material fact about Harmon’s hostile movements and the immediacy of the threat foreclose summary judgment.

Summary of the Judgment

The panel conducted de novo review of the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Looking to the video recordings, officer testimony, and reasonable inferences favorably to the Estate, the court found three key disputed issues:

Whether Officer Fox actually saw Harmon brandish or threaten with a knife;
Whether Fox had any realistic opportunity—during the six‐second foot chase—to warn Harmon to drop a weapon;
Whether Harmon posed an imminent threat when he turned sideways and allegedly reached into his pocket.

Because the Estate could show that a factfinder might credit Harmon’s unarmed version of events, a constitutional violation could be established. The court further held that existing Tenth Circuit precedent (e.g., Walker v. City of Orem, Tenorio v. Pitzer, Zuchel v. Denver) had clearly put officers on notice that shooting a suspect who is not making stabbing or slicing motions violates the Fourth Amendment. Qualified immunity thus could not shield Officer Fox, and summary judgment for Salt Lake City also fell with the underlying violation. The judgment was reversed and remanded for trial.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Tennessee v. Garner (471 U.S. 1, 1985): Established that deadly force is reasonable only if the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a serious threat of physical harm.
Graham v. Connor (490 U.S. 386, 1989): Laid out the three‐factor “reasonableness” inquiry (severity of the crime, immediacy of threat, flight/resistance).
Larsen v. Murr (511 F.3d 1255, 10th Cir. 2008): Introduced four considerations for deadly‐force knife encounters (orders to drop the weapon, hostile motions, distance, manifest intentions).
Tenorio v. Pitzer (802 F.3d 1160, 10th Cir. 2015): Held that even a three‐step advance with a knife, absent slicing or stabbing motions, could be non‐threatening and unreasonable grounds for deadly force.
Walker v. City of Orem (451 F.3d 1139, 10th Cir. 2006) & Zuchel v. Denver (997 F.2d 730, 10th Cir. 1993): Emphasized that weapon possession alone does not justify lethal force if no aggressive gestures are made.
Scott v. Harris (550 U.S. 372, 2007): Allowed courts to rely conclusively on unambiguous video evidence at summary judgment.
Tolan v. Cotton (572 U.S. 650, 2014): Reinforced that courts must credit nonmovant’s version of fact when recordings do not definitively resolve disputes.
Baca v. Cosper (128 F.4th 1319, 10th Cir. 2025): Even a six‐foot approach with knives did not automatically pose an imminent threat when no stabbing motions occurred.

2. Legal Reasoning

The court followed the two‐step qualified immunity framework:

Constitutional Violation: Under the Graham factors, the “immediacy of threat” is paramount. The panel broke this into Larsen’s four‐part knife analysis, finding genuine disputes over every consideration:
- Warning to drop the weapon: Could Fox have issued a drop‐it command during the six‐second chase? Reasonable minds could differ.
- Hostile motions: Video and Officer Smith’s testimony raise questions whether Harmon ever brandished the knife.
- Distance: Five to seven feet is close—but not conclusive of imminent danger, as Baca clarified.
- Manifest intentions: Harmon’s sideways turn, absent corroborated slashing or stabbing gestures, might not have signaled an attack.
Clearly Established Law: Prior Tenth Circuit decisions squarely hold that shooting an unarmed or non‐threatening knife‐owner violates the Fourth Amendment. Harmon’s version of events falls within these “bright‐line” precedents, so no reasonable officer could believe the use of lethal force was lawful.

3. Impact

This decision underscores that summary judgment is rarely appropriate in deadly‐force cases when disputed facts exist about weapon display, warning opportunity, or threat imminence.
It tightens qualified immunity by emphasizing that once Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit law clearly forbid shooting a suspect who is not actively stabbing or slashing, officers must respect that boundary.
Agencies will need to reinforce training on issuing warnings, assessing hostile gestures, and documenting precisely what officers observe in high‐stress encounters.
Future litigants can rely on Harmon to resist premature dismissal of excessive‐force claims when video evidence is ambiguous or incomplete.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Fourth Amendment “Reasonableness”: The right to be free from unreasonable seizures includes a balancing test: officers may use force proportionate to the danger. If someone poses no immediate threat, even a dangerous object in their pocket does not justify deadly force.
Qualified Immunity: A legal shield for officers, lost only when (a) they violate a constitutional right and (b) the right was “clearly established” at the time of the incident. Courts ask both questions at summary judgment.
Summary Judgment: A procedure to end cases without trial if no genuine factual disputes exist. Courts must draw all inferences in favor of the non‐movant and credit their version unless a recording indisputably contradicts it.
Graham Factors: Three lenses for excessive‐force claims: (1) seriousness of the suspected crime; (2) imminence of threat; (3) resistance or flight. The second—imminence—is most critical for deadly force.
Larsen Considerations: A finer breakdown when a weapon is involved: (1) orders to drop it; (2) hostile gestures; (3) how close the suspect is; (4) the suspect’s apparent intent.

Conclusion

Estate of Harmon, Sr. v. Salt Lake City clarifies that at the summary‐judgment stage, any genuine dispute over whether a suspect made aggressive knife motions or posed an imminent threat forecloses qualified immunity in deadly‐force cases. It reinforces that officers must clearly establish a belief in serious harm before firing—mere flight or possession of a weapon at rest is insufficient. This precedent will guide future courts, litigants, and law‐enforcement training in balancing public safety against constitutional rights.