Summary

The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for two Chicago police officers involved in the 2018 shooting of Juan Mendez. Mendez brought claims against the officers for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and battery under Illinois law, and sought indemnification from the City. The Seventh Circuit held that when a suspect turns and rapidly swings and points an unknown object at police officers during a foot chase, the totality of the circumstances supports probable cause to believe the suspect posed a threat of serious physical harm.

Background and Procedural History

On the morning of May 26, 2018, the Chicago Police Department detected a gunshot using ShotSpotter technology. Minutes later, body-camera footage shows Officers Szczur and Cook arriving near the location of the alert and observing Mendez and a juvenile seated on a nearby porch. When Officer Szczur moved onto the porch, Mendez immediately bolted, prompting pursuit. As the chase unfolded, Officer Cook repeatedly yelled warnings—“Waistband,” “Keep your hands up,” and “He’s got it in his hand.” Mendez fell, rose, looked back, and swung his right arm toward the officers while holding an unclear object. Officer Szczur yelled “I’ll shoot you,” and shot Mendez three times. After the shooting, Officers recovered a handgun approximately 10 feet from where Mendez fell. Mendez’s wounds left him paralyzed.

On summary judgment, relying primarily on body-camera footage, the district court rejected Mendez’s Fourth Amendment excessive force and related state law claims. The court acknowledged that while the footage did not show whether Mendez pointed a firearm at officers, it was clear enough to show that Mendez swung his arm toward the officers while holding an object. As such, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable officer would have probable cause to believe that Mendez threatened the safety of the officers or others.

Seventh Circuit’s Analysis

Writing for the panel, Judge Scudder emphasized that excessive force claims are governed by the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard, requiring assessment of all circumstances known to an officer at the time. Given the officers’ knowledge of a recent gunshot, Mendez’s immediate flight, Cook’s shouted warnings, and Mendez turning and swinging an object toward them, the Court found Officer Szczur had probable cause to believe Mendez posed a threat of serious physical harm.

While Mendez argued that the Court could not rely on body-camera footage because it was shaky, dark, the events happened too fast, and did not definitively establish that Mendez pointed a gun at the officers, it remained sufficiently clear for another purpose. The footage corroborated the officers’ testimony that Mendez made a rapid, threatening movement with an object in his hand. Because the video did not blatantly contradict the officers’ account, summary judgment was proper.

The Court also reiterated that video evidence is treated like any other evidence, useful when conclusive, but incapable of resolving factual disputes when unclear. Here, although imperfect, the footage supported the defense.

Regarding the state law battery and indemnification claims, the Court stated that a public employee is not liable for conduct performed in the enforcement of the law unless it is willful and wanton. Because the shooting was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, it could not be considered willful and wanton. As a result, the state law claims failed.

Holding

The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for all defendants, concluding that Officer Szczur’s use of deadly force was reasonable under the circumstances, and no constitutional or state law violation occurred.

Takeaways for Law Enforcement and Municipalities

1. Threat Assessment Turns on the Officer’s Perception, Not Post-Hoc Certainty

The Sevent Circuit reaffirmed that officers need not confirm that a suspect is armed before using deadly force. When a suspect turns during a foot chase and rapidly swings or points an object towards an officer, the totality of the circumstances may establish probable cause of a serious threat. Even if later video does not conclusively show a firearm, an officer’s split-second assessment can be shown to be objectively reasonable.

2. Imperfect Body-Camera Footage Can Support Summary Judgment

The Court made clear that footage need not be clear, steady, or definitive. If video does not blatantly contradict the officers’ accounts and supports other facts that establish probable cause, summary judgment may still be appropriate. Officers should continue to activate their body cameras and municipalities should continue to follow video retention policies, as these videos can be invaluable to the defense of lawsuits.

3. Warnings and Verbal Cues Matter

Repeated verbal warnings during the pursuit factored heavily into the Court’s analysis. These warnings established that the officer’s perception of danger was reasonable. Training should reinforce loud and clear communication between officers for tactical purposes and later legal protection.

Authored by:

Zachery Frye (unpictured)