Denial of Civil Rights Suit Affirmed

Jones v. Norton, 809 F.3d 564 (12/29/15) (Ut.) (Published) - The 10th affirms a denial of § 1983 relief in a pursuit and shooting case. The 10th finds a video disproved the plaintiffs' contention that Mr. Murray, the deceased, momentarily halted in response to an officer's command. So there was no seizure governed by the 4th Amendment. Nor, the 10th says, was there submission that would evidence a seizure when Mr. Murray ran towards the officer and fired shots at him. The 10th also does not find evidence supporting the plaintiffs' position that the officer shot Mr. Murray, rather than Mr. Murray shooting himself, as the officer claimed. Mr. Murray died from a contact wound, at the time of the shooting the officer was seen more than 100 yards away where his bullet casings were found, and the officer had no blood on him. The 10th was unimpressed by the fact that to kill himself, Mr. Murray would have had to use his left hand and he was right-handed. The 10th finds no due process violation from the officer shooting at Mr. Murray because Mr, Murray fired first. Nor does the 10th see any problem with the manner of officers' approach to Mr. Murray after he was shot because Mr. Murray was unconscious and so unaware of the officers' behavior.

The 10th rules it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to find none of the sued city and state officers had a duty to preserve evidence that ended up disappearing or not being collected, e.g., Mr. Murray's gun and the shooting officer's gun The 10th says an FBI agent and the chief of the city police were the people with the most obvious responsibility to preserve the evidence and they weren't sued. The 10th finds nothing wrong with the district court's conclusion that no prejudice was shown as the result of an officer's removing Mr. Murray's clothes, losing samples and tampering with the body, including putting his fingers in the bullet wounds. The 10th acknowledges the officer's actions were at best sloppy and unorthodox, and at worst suspicious, but not grounds for relief. The 10th also holds the Ute Treaty does not provide rights that can be enforced through § 1983. The 10th finds no evidence of racial animus in the pursuit of Mr. Murray, despite the officers' knowledge of Mr. Murray's race and the racial tension in the local culture.