Quezada vs. County of Bernalillo
In Quezada v. County of Bernalillo, 944 F.2d 710 (10th Cir. 1991), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit examined whether officers’ use of deadly force, under certain circumstances, violated the Fourth Amendment, and also whether the county had liability for failure to train or establish adequate policies. The case is often cited in excessive force jurisprudence, particularly in cases involving suicidal or emotionally disturbed persons, and in evaluating the responsibilities of agencies beyond individual officers.
The Facts
Berlinda Griego (“Griego”) was found in a parked car behind a building in Albuquerque, NM. Deputies had been alerted and responded.
Deputies observed that Griego was not responding to requests. They saw her with a gun, and she appeared suicidal. At different points she put the gun to her head and inside her mouth.
She was asked to drop the weapon and to exit the vehicle. She did not comply. She attempted to drive the vehicle away from the scene at a slow speed, and there was blocking of exit routes by deputies.
The key moment came when Deputy Sauser believed that Griego “turned abruptly” and “aimed” the weapon toward him—a posture that made him believe his life was in jeopardy. In response, he fired three times, two of which struck Griego, resulting in fatal injury.
Decision & Legal Issues
Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming violation of Griego’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights (excessive force), as well as under state law for wrongful death and related torts.
The trial court (bench trial) found for plaintiff, awarding over $1.24 million in damages.
However, on appeal, the Tenth Circuit reversed in part. While the lower court found that Sauser violated Griego’s rights, the appellate court held that the lower court had failed to properly apply the Graham v. Connor standard of “objective reasonableness” when assessing the § 1983 claim. Because Graham had been decided after the bench trial, some of the findings did not address all of the required factors under that standard.
The appellate court remanded the case for further proceedings so the factual findings could properly consider whether the force used was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Legal Principles & Implications
Quezada is particularly important for several reasons:
Objective Reasonableness Under Graham:
This case emphasizes how Graham v. Connor (1989) changed the legal standard for excessive force. Even if a force was deemed negligent or unwise under prior standards, what matters in § 1983 claims is whether the officer’s actions were reasonable from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, considering the facts known at the time. Quezada shows that failing to explicitly assess the Graham factors can lead to reversal.“Split-Second” Decisions in Tense, Uncertain Situations:
The court noted that officers often must make split-second judgments under pressure. The standard requires balancing various factors (danger to officer or public, resistance or flight, severity) and recognizing that perfect clarity is seldom present. Quezada reaffirms that legal review must account for what the officer reasonably perceives.Agency Liability and Training / Policies:
The case also touches on the responsibility of the sheriff’s department or county: whether there was a failure in training or in policies/procedures regarding handling suicidal individuals, de-escalation, or how and when deadly force might be used. While the county was found liable under state law for certain negligent training claims, with respect to the federal constitutional claims the court required more focused findings under Graham.Federal vs State Claims:
Quezada splits the analysis between the federal constitutional law (use of excessive force under § 1983) and state tort claims (negligence, wrongful death). Even where the constitutional claim may fail or be remanded, state law claims may still provide a path for relief if departmental policies or training were found deficient.
Lessons for Law Enforcement, Attorneys, and Policymakers
Here are takeaways that apply today:
Documentation and Analysis of Each Graham Factor: Reports and investigations must show how officers assessed (or reasonably should have assessed) the severity of the crime, immediate threat to officer/public, and whether the suspect was resisting or fleeing. Explicit findings on these help both internal review and legal defensibility.
Recognizing Suicidal or Mentally Distressed Subjects: When someone is behaving erratically, is suicidal, or is under the influence, it’s crucial that policy, training, and supervision prepare officers for how to engage safely, to de-escalate, and to assess risk.
Training on Positioning, Use of Cover, Distance: In Quezada, proximity and officer positioning were key issues—Deputy Sauser was very close to the vehicle. Training that emphasizes tactical positioning, awareness of cover, and the risks of proximity to subjects with weapons can reduce likelihood that an officer “places themselves in a position of peril.”
Procedural Policies and Agency Accountability: Agencies must continually evaluate whether their policies and training materials cover the kinds of scenarios that commonly lead to use-of-force incidents—such as suicidal individuals, persons with mental illness, or persons driving vehicles. Failure to have policies or to train can expose the agency to liability under both state and federal law.
Need for Clear Findings in Courts: For attorneys, ensuring that courts make findings that address Graham’s standard is essential. Courts need to apply those factors explicitly rather than subsume them under negligence or general risk.
Conclusion
Quezada v. County of Bernalillo is a landmark in excessive force law—not because it resolved every issue, but because it illuminated the demands that Graham v. Connor places on officers, departments, and courts. It reminds us that constitutional review is not about hindsight judgments, but about assessing what a reasonable officer might have done in the moment. It places importance not just on what happened, but on policy, training, positioning, perception, and decision-making under pressure.
