Estate of Waterhouse v. Direzza, No. 23-1360 (10th Cir. 2025) (Filed February 20, 2025).

In the Estate of Waterhouse v. Direzza, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Sergeant Direzza’s qualified immunity in finding that use of lethal force against Mr. Waterhouse complied with the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard used to analyze excessive force claims. The incident occurred when Mr. Waterhouse, high on methamphetamine, barricaded himself in the basement of his sister’s home, started a fire, and refused to surrender to the police for nearly two hours. When officers entered the smoke-filled basement, Mr. Waterhouse rushed towards them, prompting Sergeant Direzza to fire three shots, fatally wounding him. The court found that Sergeant Direzza’s actions were justified under the circumstances, as Mr. Waterhouse posed an immediate threat of serious physical harm to the officers. The court also held that Sergeant Direzza did not violate clearly established law, as no controlling precedent prohibited the use of lethal force in such exigent circumstances.

Factual Background:

Jason Waterhouse (“Mr. Waterhouse”) had a history of drug usage, strange behavior, and was out on bond for assaulting an officer at the time of this incident. On December 19, 2019, Heather Lopez, Mr. Waterhouse’s sister, reported to the Lakewood Police Department (“LPD”) that Mr. Waterhouse was agitated and barricading himself under the stairs of the basement in her home. Ms. Lopez informed the LPD that she assumed he was “on something,” as he had “been like this” since the previous night and had a history of methamphetamine and alcohol use. Ms. Lopez had taken a “shiv” (a knife-like weapon) away from him, but he was “armed with a hammer” and striking objects, and she did not know if he had any other weapons.

The LPD arrived at Ms. Lopez’s residence, and she told them that Mr. Waterhouse was out on bond for assaulting an officer. LPD officers did not enter the home. From outside the house, the officers ordered Mr. Waterhouse to come out of the basement, in response they only heard “crashing sounds.” The officers told Ms. Lopez they would not try to force him out of the basement if she did not want him to be charged for the damage, she responded “if that’s what it takes … I can’t deal with this.”

With the consent from Ms. Lopez, Sergeant Eric Ebeling (“Sergeant Elebling”), a SWAT negotiator, entered the home and went to the top of the basement stairs with several other officers. They tried to coax Mr. Waterhouse out, but Mr. Waterhouse, still wielding a hammer, refused and yelled several profane and threatening statements at the officers. The officers spent an hour trying to resolve the situation peacefully and then Mr. Waterhouse started a fire in the basement. Sergeant Marc Direzza (“Sergeant Direzza”), who had extensive de-escalation experience joined the LPD officers. As the fire continued, Mr. Waterhouse would not leave the basement. Sergeant Elebling then decided to extract Mr. Waterhouse when the smoke drifted out of the basement because he was worried the fire department would not be able to deal with the fire. Seven officers began down the stairs into the basement, some had non-lethal and less-lethal weapons. Sergeant Direzza had a pistol as the officer assigned to provide lethal cover.

As the LPD officers began descending into the basement, they realized the intensity of the fire, as it had been lit under the stairs, and they could not see clearly from heavy smoke. This created a chaotic environment and obvious risk to the officers. Some officers saw Mr. Waterhouse with a “club” or a “large stick in his hand.” Mr. Waterhouse then slammed the door to a basement bedroom, while he was inside the bedroom. Sergeant Ebeling and Sergeant Direzza ordered the team to evacuate because of the fire. Sergeant Direzza volunteered to be the last to leave the basement because he was providing lethal cover. As LPD officers were exiting the basement, Mr. Waterhouse “burst out” of the basement bedroom and “rushed toward” the two remaining officers, who were about six to ten feet away. Though he was unarmed, he also did nothing to indicate he was surrendering and ready to comply with the officers. The parties dispute whether he was charging the officers or trying to run out of the basement. However, Sergeant Direzza and the other officer left in the basement, thought Mr. Waterhouse “wanted to kill [them],” and that “a struggle in the burning basement would be deadly.” The officers had little time to react and rushed towards the stairs. Sergeant Direzza fired his pistol three times, with one bullet striking Mr. Waterhouse. Mr. Waterhouse died from the gunshot wound. Time stamps on dispatch records show that the LPD officers were in the basement for slightly less than two minutes.

Procedural History:

On April 6, 2021, Mr. Waterhouse’s estate (“the Estate”), through its personal representative, Ms. Lopez, and Amber Waterhouse, Mr. Waterhouse’s daughter, filed a complaint against Sergeant Direzza and the City of Lakewood, Colorado. The complaint asserted three claims: (1) a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by the Estate against both defendants, (2) a municipal-liability claim under § 1983 by both plaintiffs against the City of Lakewood, and (3) a wrongful-death claim under Colorado law by Amber Waterhouse against Sergeant Direzza.

On October 18, 2023, the district court concluded that Sergeant Direzza was entitled to qualified immunity and granted him summary judgment on the Estate’s excessive-force claim. Having entered judgment on the sole remaining federal claim, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Waterhouse’s state-law wrongful-death claim and dismissed it without prejudice. The Estate and Ms. Waterhouse appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (“Tenth Circuit” or “Court”).

Tenth Circuit’s Analysis:

In a review of summary judgment where a defendant asserts the defense of qualified immunity, the affirmative defense creates a presumption that the defendant is immune from the suit. Sanchez v. Guzman, 105 F.4th 1285, 1292 (10th Cir. 2024). “To overcome this presumption, the plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that (1) the officers’ alleged conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the violation, such that every reasonable official would have understood that such conduct constituted a violation of that right.” Id.

1. Sergeant Direzza’s Actions Did Not Violate the Fourth Amendment

Apprehending a suspect “by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment.” Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 7 (1985). In Graham v. Connor, the Supreme Court identified three nonexclusive factors for determining whether a particular use of force was excessive: (1) “the severity of the crime at issue,” (2) “whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others,” and (3) “whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989). Based on these propositions, the Tenth Circuit held that an individual does not need to be armed to be a threat, therefore even though Mr. Waterhouse was unarmed he still presented a danger to the officers. Additionally, a reasonable officer could have thought Mr. Waterhouse was charging the officers and not trying to leave the basement. The Court emphasizes that reasonableness is judged from the perspective of the officers, and in a split-second decision like this, courts must recognize that ‘reasonableness’ is not what one would conclude after studied contemplation.

The Tenth Circuit then reviewed the Graham factors as applied to the facts of the present case. Regarding the severity of the crime, the Tenth Circuit found that by starting a fire when the officers were present and inside the home, his actions were clearly a dangerous, severe crime. See Ramirez v. Guadarrama, 3 F.4th 129, 134–36 (5th Cir. 2021) (concluding that officers’ use of force was reasonable because the crime of felony arson was severe). The factor of resisting or evading arrest similarly favors Sergeant Direzza because Mr. Waterhouse had resisted the officers’ attempts to surrender for nearly two hours. Moreover, when he eventually exited the bedroom, he gave no indication he was willing to comply. The Tenth Circuit moved to the factor of the immediacy of the threat, which is the most important factor in determining the objective reasonableness of an officer’s use of force. They reasoned that due to the surrounding circumstances: tight space, a fire and Mr. Waterhouse’s actions in resisting the officers, the perception of an immediate threat weighed in favor of Sergeant Direzza. The Tenth Circuit noted that the fire itself presented a dangerous enough situation for the officers, yet the actions of Mr. Waterhouse barging into the room and running towards the officers heightened the severity of danger the officers faced. The Estate asserted that the officers had adequate time to assess the imminent threat, and that Mr. Waterhouse was going towards the stairs and not the officers. The Court disagreed with the Estate’s assertions and concluded that the officers did not have much time to assess the situation. Further, physical evidence of the bullet shell locations and multiple officers’ observations established that Mr. Waterhouse was heading towards the officers. The Tenth Circuit Court found that Sergeant Direzza’s use of deadly force was not excessive but was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

2. Violation Was Not Clearly Established

Although the Tenth Circuit found that there was no Fourth Amendment violation, they briefly addressed the second prong of qualified immunity, whether a violation was clearly established. Law is clearly established “if a plaintiff (1) identifies an on-point Supreme Court or published Tenth Circuit decision or (2) shows the clearly established weight of authority from other courts has found the law to be as the plaintiff maintains.” Flores v. Henderson, 101 F.4th 1185, 1192 (10th Cir. 2024). The Tenth Circuit found the cases relied on by the Estate were not applicable and that no prior case law forbids officers from using lethal force when there is someone unarmed who is still threatening and approaching officers. Due to Sergeant Direzza’s vulnerable position, a reasonable officer would have feared being attacked, therefore creating a grave risk of injury or death.

3. Dismissal of Wrongful-Death Claim

Because the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of summary judgment, the wrongful death claim is dismissed.

Conclusion:

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s conclusion that Sergeant Direzza was entitled to qualified immunity and affirmed the granting of summary judgment on the Estate’s excessive force claim.

Authored by:

not-pictured: Madeline Van Schelven