Updated at 8:11 p.m.
By Sharyn L. Decker
Lewis County Sirens news reporter
CHEHALIS – The lawsuit against former Lewis County Sheriff’s Office Deputy Matt McKnight regarding the fatal shooting of an unarmed Napavine man was dismissed by a judge, meaning no trial will take place.
Steven V. Petersen, 33, died after a brief standoff on a city street on the night of June 20, 2011, when deputies responded to a report Petersen had tried to get inside a former girlfriend’s home and was armed with a knife.
A federal judge issued a summary judgment in favor of Lewis County and the deputy on Thursday. The Lewis County Board of Commissioners were notified this morning.
U.S. District Court Judge Ronald B. Leighton wrote that even though the reasonableness of McKnight’s use-of-force could not be determined at this stage in the litigation, McKnight is entitled to qualified immunity and all Petersen’s other claims fail as a matter of law.
McKnight was cleared by an internal review and the county prosecutor concluded his use of deadly force was justified in mid-2011. He has since gone to work for the Chehalis Police Department.
The civil trial however, had been set to begin at the end of this month in Tacoma, although it recently had been postponed.
The civil lawsuit was filed in October 2012 by Petersen’s father, on behalf of the dead man’s 10-year-old son. His lawyers called it a ‘shoot first and ask questions later’ approach to law enforcement, faulting McKnight for choosing to engage in a confrontation before backup arrived.
The attorneys representing the deputy and the county said it was a split-second decision to shoot out of fear for the safety of himself and neighboring residents during a rapidly unfolding situation.
It was about 2 a.m. when the deputy encountered Petersen near the intersection of West Vine Street and Second Avenue. The interaction lasted one minute and 11 seconds; the two were 20 to 25 feet apart, the judge wrote.
Petersen paced back and forth, ignored the deputy’s orders to take his hand out of his sweatshirt pocket and then refused to get on the ground.
It came to an end when McKnight shot him four times because he thought Petersen was charging towards him and was going to stab him, according to the judge. As it turned out, Petersen didn’t have a knife.
A summary judgement is appropriate when viewing the facts in the most favorable light to the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact which would preclude it as a matter of law, according to Leighton.
Judge Leighton writes an officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless the right he or she allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.
“Plaintiff cited no analogous cases to support his assertion that the law was clearly established such that McKnight was on notice that his conduct would violate Steven’s (Fourth Amendment) rights,” Leighton writes.
Other claims that were dismissed as a matter of law, were the municipal liability, the child’s 14th Amendment right to the companionship of his father and negligence.
A counterclaim by the defendants of malicious prosecution was also dismissed, because Petersen had a good-faith basis for the lawsuit, according to Leighton.
The complaint sought an unspecified amount of damages, but the claim that preceded it asked for as much as $10 million.
Lewis County RIsk Manager Paulette Young told county commissioners this morning she thought the most that had ever been paid out on behalf of the county was a case involving about $365,000 many years ago.
Sheriff Steve Mansfield issued a statement calling the decision fortunate.
“I am pleased with the findings,” Mansfield stated. “Although I am truly saddened Mr. Petersen lost his life, the facts are what they are.”
Judge Leighton although he concluded he could not resolve a question of fact in his summary judgement outlined what a jury could have been faced with answering.
A reasonable jury could conclude it was unreasonable for McKnight to shoot the man that he thought was armed with a knife who was 20 to 25 feet away without first warning him he would be shot, Leighton wrote.
However, a reasonable jury could also conclude the McKnight reasonably perceived a threat to his own safety based on all the circumstances and that he had to react immediately before Petersen was close enough to attack, he wrote.
•••
Read the judge’s order granting summary judgement, here
For background, read “Lethal force case against sheriff’s deputy ready for trial” from Wednesday February 5, 2014, here
Tags: By Sharyn L. Decker, news reporter
A lot like the shooting of the guy in Centralia. why not shoot one or both knees or legs, that surely would stop a suspect. But no, not the case, unload the hole magazine and put them 6 ft. under.
the judges wont even let this get to trial so we can hang this piece of shit.
take the OJ simpson case as a precedent innocent in the criminal but guilty in the civil. The fact that this actually took place,… there is a man dead is probable cause for a civil trial to happen. He is cleared of criminal,…the sherriff office covering their own ass twice? In both trials with a phony biased report? Where is the checks and balances? Id sue the sherriffs office for their biased investigation that cleared Mcknight in the first place. A reasonable person would think an independent investigation would be beneficial before a case is dismissed? Take the sherriffs office word for something they are responsible for? Why would they slap their self on their own wrists? Makes no sense,… also makes no sense to base both trials on a report that included no jury or citizen input.
Yippe-ki-yay. The stupid attorney who took this case on behalf of the family is the one who should be sued. Idiot! The deceased could have prevented this in so many ways. The officer did what he was forced to do. That’s all there is to it.
I read the entire decision. I thought the judge’s reasoning was somewhat convoluted, although I think he came to the right decision. I also agree with dismissing the counterclaim, but only because I think it might help put the matter to rest without an appeal.
Reading the facts and conclusions of the case, I thought summary judgment in favor of defendants was justified by the facts as presented. Such as, “An officer who responded to the house confirmed that the suspect had used a large knife
to stab the front door.” “Because the person closely
matched the suspect’s description, McKnight believed that he was the suspect. He was correct.” “Believing that Steven was armed with a knife, McKnight informed dispatch that he was
“out with one,” and then he exited his patrol vehicle.”
Then, “Steven did not comply and was acting erratically, McKnight drew his gun. He continued to repeatedly order Steven to show his hands, but Steven continued to ignore his commands. McKnight ordered Steven to get on the ground, but Steven refused and said, “that ain’t going to happen, buddy.” McKnight claims that he saw the muscles in Steven’s arm flex and his whole body posture change. Then, Steven leaned forward and took two steps towards
McKnight. McKnight does not remember how fast Steven moved towards him, but one witness saw the incident from her front window. She claims that Steven “rushed forward.” McKnight
believed that Steven was going to stab him, so he shot him four times, killing him instantly.”
“Steven was 20-25 feet away from McKnight’s patrol car when he was shot.”
I just have a very hard time seeing where this could have gone at trial that would not have found the officer was justified. How does a reasonable person (“reasonable person” does not include LBF and a few others) conclude that McKnight had no reason to conclude Steven did not threaten his life when he had every reason to believe Steven had a large knife and began moving toward him?
I actually question the judge’s use of qualified immunity to flush this case down the toilet. But I applaud the flushing.
thinkprogress.org /justice/2013/12/20/2936461/anatomy-police-shooting/
baystateexaminer.com /government-fails-track-data-police-shootings/
It’s a shame this had to happen. It is a relief to know that the federal judge and all parties involved came to the same conclusion – it was a justified use of force.
I think they already did, Free Air. The deputy / county filed a ‘malicious prosecution’ counter claim, but the judge dismissed that as well, saying the action “certainly is not groundless.”
Does that mean the deputy now gets to sue the family members for all the crap they put him through?
There ought to be some avenue available for such frivolous lawsuits to punish those just trying to make a buck off of a tragedy.