An interesting case arose in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. The case was instituted by the personal representatives of the estate of the deceased and involved the accidental shooting of the deceased by a police officer responding to a burglar alarm. The police officer was not informed that a caretaker or homeowner would be responding to the alarm. When he saw a man standing in the open doorway, he identified himself as a police officer and asked the caretaker to identify himself. The police officer claimed that after he did so, the officer saw that the caretaker was wearing a holster and was reaching for it. The officer requested the caretaker to keep his hands down. The officer alleged that the deceased did not comply with his order and drew a gun. The officer claimed that he believed his life was in imminent danger and shot the caretaker.
The estate of the deceased caretaker filed a claim against the city and the police officer. The personal representatives of the deceased filed an action against the police officer and the city. The city filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, claiming that it is undisputed that the individual pointed a gun at the police officer and that the police officer did not violate the Constitutional rights of the deceased because his use of force was reasonable under the circumstances. The plaintiff disputed the claim contended that the officer’s reckless conduct created the need to use deadly force.