Whether the Fourth Amendment permits police to shoot a fleeing suspect who might be holding a gun but exhibits no other signs of dangerousness

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), this Court held that unarmed, nondangerous suspects fleeing officers can’t simply be shot. But the decision didn’t address whether an armed suspect running away can be seized through deadly force. The courts of appeals have generally answered “no” and require additional signs of dangerousness, such as being wanted for a violent crime, moving toward officers, fighting, ignoring commands, verbal threats, and the like. In this case, however, a closely divided Fifth Circuit (2-1 and 10-7 denying rehearing en banc) reversed a district court and held that simply fleeing with something that might be a gun justified deadly force — the fatal shooting of an eighteen-year-old in the back, with no warning, as he ran away from officers. The majority also treated as legal rather than factual the question whether Argueta’s flight actually posed a grave and immediate threat to officers or bystanders, contrary to this Court’s observation in Graham uv. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), and the practice of other circuits. Accordingly, the questions presented are: 1. Whether the Fourth Amendment permits police to shoot a fleeing suspect who might be holding a gun but exhibits no other signs of dangerousness. 2. Whether the level and immediacy of the threat actually facing officers on the scene is a question of fact for jurors or a legal issue assigned to the court.