From [HERE] A wrongful death lawsuit against the Clark County Sheriff's Department and two deputies, filed by Kevin Peterson Jr.'s family, will go to a jury trial.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals unanimously ruled in favor of Peterson's family, whose attorneys announced the update on Wednesday.

In October 2020, Clark County Sheriff's deputies shot and killed Peterson, a 21-year-old Black man, during a failed drug sting. Peterson had expected to deliver Xanax pills and showed up to a parking lot in Hazel Dell, but ran away when he realized it was a setup, according to attorney Mark Lindquist. According to the lawsuit the police shot him to death while he was fleeing and posed no threat to the police.

At the time, former Clark County Sheriff Chuck Atkins said Peterson shot at deputies first. However, an independent investigation later found no evidence to suggest that Peterson shot at police. In other words, the police officers lied.

Peterson's family and the mother of his child filed a lawsuit in May 2022, accusing Clark County's then-sheriff Atkins and the deputies involved of wrongful death, negligence and excessive force. 

In September 2023, a federal trial judge denied the defendant's motion to dismiss five causes of action in the lawsuit. The federal judge ruled the lawsuit could move ahead to trial and set a start date for Oct. 30, 2023. But Clark County appealed the trial judge's ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

In an opinion filed on July 16, 2024, the three-judge panel unanimously held that "…the government’s interest in the use of deadly force was limited because Peterson was not suspected of committing a violent crime and a jury could reasonably conclude that he posed no immediate threat to the officers or others." The court stated

Although Peterson was armed and actively trying to evade police officers, the evidence, construed in his favor, suggests that he did not point the gun at anyone, say a word to the officers, make any harrowing gestures, or make any furtive or threatening movements towards the officers or the public. See Rice, 989 F.3d at 1121 (holding that the “most important” factor in deadly force cases is whether the suspect posed an immediate threat); Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689, 704 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (noting that deadly force is generally not permissible “unless it is necessary to prevent escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others” (quoting Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 3 (1985))).

While Defendants rely on officer testimony to the contrary, “in the deadly force context, we cannot ‘simply accept what may be a self-serving account by the police officer,’” because the victim—usually the best-positioned witness to rebut an officer’s testimony—is dead. Cruz v. City of Anaheim, 765 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Scott v. Henrich, 39 F.3d 912, 915 (9th Cir. 1994)). [MORE]

“This ruling sends a message to Clark County that they ought to look at their policies," said Lindquist. "Given Clark County’s resistance to accountability, the only way the family and the community is likely to see justice is through a trial.” 

Less than a year later, a Pierce County prosecutor found the shooting "justified and lawful." The deputies who fired at Peterson were cleared of criminal wrongdoing.

All causes of action alleged in the lawsuit will go to the jury. The trial is scheduled for early 2025 and will be held in the federal courthouse in Seattle.