Glenn v. Washington County

Incident Summary & Facts

At about 3:00 a.m., 18-year-old Lukus Glenn came home intoxicated and agitated. He had no history of violence. He broke windows and the front door, then held a pocketknife to his own neck and threatened suicide. The knife had a three-inch blade and a hooked tip. His mother called 911 for help. Dispatch told officers that the son had “a pocket knife,” was suicidal and “very intoxicated,” had a history of suicide attempts, and could not get to the family’s locked hunting rifles. Deputy Gerba skipped the staging area and arrived first, at 3:11 a.m. He stood 8 to 12 feet from Lukus. Deputy Mateski arrived about a minute later and stood 6 to 12 feet away. Both had unobstructed views. Lukus was “not threatening anyone with the knife” and was not in a physical altercation with anyone. He was holding the knife to his own neck.

Both deputies aimed pistols at Lukus and only “scream[ed] commands” (“drop the knife or I’m going to kill you”), without trying to persuade him. Lukus may not have heard or understood the commands because he was intoxicated and many people were yelling. The officers sent his parents into the house, whose door they knew could not be locked, and moved his friends behind them. A sergeant radioed that “a taser may be an option if you have enough distance.” About three minutes in, Officer Pastore arrived and, on Mateski’s order, fired all six beanbag rounds. Lukus moved toward the alcove between the house and garage, “the most obvious line of retreat.” After one or two steps, Gerba and Mateski fired 11 shots, hitting him eight times. They said they feared he would go after his parents. All of this took less than four minutes from the first officer’s arrival. Seconds earlier, Lukus had pleaded, “Tell them to stop screaming at me.”

Procedural posture: The district court granted summary judgment to the officers and the County, finding no Fourth Amendment violation. The estate appealed.

Core Legal Issue

Viewing the facts in the plaintiff’s favor, were the officers’ use of a less-lethal beanbag shotgun, and their quick move to deadly force, against a suicidal, intoxicated young man holding a pocketknife to his own throat objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment as a matter of law?

The Holding

Reversed and remanded for trial. Genuine disputes of material fact about whether both the beanbag force and the deadly force were reasonable precluded summary judgment. The court remanded the clearly-established prong of qualified immunity, the Monell claim, and the state wrongful-death claim.

The Court’s Analysis:

• Beanbag rounds are significant force. A beanbag round is “less-lethal,” not non-lethal, and can kill. It is “permissible only when a strong governmental interest compels” it.
• Immediate threat (most important Graham factor): A jury could find that Lukus posed little immediate threat. He stayed in one place, threatened only himself, and the bystanders had been moved away. “No new action by Lukus precipitated the use of less-lethal force.” Preventing a suicide does not justify force capable of causing serious injury or death: “the ‘solution’ could be worse than the problem.”
• Severity of crime and resistance: Lukus had committed no identified crime. The family called for help, not to report a crime. His noncompliance amounted only to “static” resistance under the County’s own force continuum. That level of resistance did not authorize less-lethal munitions.
• Additional factors: The officers knew he was emotionally disturbed, which reduces the government’s interest. The only warning right before firing was “beanbag, beanbag.” Less intrusive options were available: talking, “use time as a tool” while backup arrived, or a taser. Officers need not use the least intrusive means, but available alternatives help define the range of reasonable conduct. The court said a “desire to resolve quickly” a situation does not by itself justify serious force.
• Provocation and deadly force: Under Billington, if the beanbag fire was itself an independent Fourth Amendment violation that provoked Lukus’s movement, the officers could be liable for their “otherwise defensive use of deadly force.” Even if the beanbag was justified, whether “escalating so quickly to deadly force” was warranted is a question for the jury.