Estate of Deweese v. Hancock.
No. 25-1161. 8/19/2026. D.Colo. Judge Carson. Qualified Immunity—Fourth Amendment—Clearly Established Law—Motion to Dismiss—Use of Canine.
August 19, 2026
Deweese got into an argument with the bartender at a bar. The bartender tried to push him out of the bar, and a bar patron intervened and pushed Deweese to the ground. Deweese stood up and tried to pull a gun out of his pocket. The bartender yelled, “He’s got a gun, call 911.” Deweese left the bar, and someone called 911. Officers came upon Deweese in a courtyard down the street from the bar. The officers immediately pointed their firearms at Deweese. They also shone lights on Deweese because it was dark outside. Officers made various commands to Deweese, including to stop moving, show his hands, walk toward them, and drop what he was holding. Deweese refused to comply with requests to surrender. After about 20 minutes, Officer Hancock yelled to Deweese that if he did not walk out with his hands up, he would send his canine Jinx in to bite him. Deweese yelled back that he would shoot Jinx if they sent the dog to attack him. After a few more minutes of Deweese not moving, Hancock released Jinx and yelled for it to “attack” Deweese. Several officers ran behind Jinx with their firearms ready. As Jinx approached Deweese, he pulled out a handgun and fired it at the dog. Immediately upon seeing Deweese’s gun aimed at Jinx, Officer LeBaron fired his weapon at Deweese. Three other officers also fired their weapons at Deweese, and he died on the scene from the gunshots. Deweese’s estate sued the officers, alleging violations of the US Constitution’s Fourth Amendment and of CRS § 13-21-131, for violations of Colo. Const. Art. II. The first claim alleged excessive force, conspiracy, and failure to intervene regarding the officers’ use of Jinx. The second claim alleged that the officers used excessive deadly force when they shot Deweese and recklessly incited the need for the deadly force. The officers moved to dismiss based on qualified immunity. The district court granted the motions to dismiss the federal claims because, at the time it occurred, the alleged constitutional violation was not clearly established. The court then declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.
On appeal, the estate argued that the officers violated Deweese’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force by using Jinx to attack and bite Deweese. The estate asserted that when the officers’ conduct occurred, the law clearly established that using severe force, such as a canine, to attack a nonmoving, nonthreatening subject violated the Fourth Amendment. Once the officers raised qualified immunity, the estate had the burden to make a factual showing that the officers’ conduct violated Deweese’s constitutional rights that were clearly established when the alleged violation occurred. The estate cited Luethje v. Kyle, 131 F.4th 1179 (10th Cir. 2025), in which the Tenth Circuit stated that its case law clearly established “that it violates the Fourth Amendment to use force without warning against a non-violent, non-resisting suspect who is given no chance to comply . . . .” Id. at 1200 (emphasis added). The cases the Tenth Circuit relied on in Luethje would not put a reasonable officer on notice that it is unconstitutional to order a police canine to attack an armed suspect who refused to comply with lawful orders after officers warned the suspect of their impending use of force. Here, the officers negotiated with Deweese extensively and allowed him to comply with their commands before using force. The estate thus failed to meet its burden of showing that the law clearly established a Fourth Amendment violation when the conduct here occurred.
The estate also contended that the officers violated Deweese’s Fourth Amendment rights through their use of deadly force because shooting Deweese violated his constitutional rights and, even if they perceived Deweese as threatening, the officers recklessly incited the need to use deadly force. However, the estate cited no case that clearly establishes that shooting a suspect who points a gun at a police canine in the presence of officers is unlawful. Nor did the estate cite a case clearly establishing that the officers’ actions recklessly incited the need for deadly force. Accordingly, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.
The Tenth Circuit also rejected the estate’s argument that the conduct here was an egregious or obvious violation of Deweese’s rights sufficient to overcome qualified immunity.
The dismissal was affirmed.