IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

ERNEST PADILLA, Personal Representative
of the Estate of ROBERT DOTSON, deceased;
KIMBERLY DOTSON, individually
and as parent and next friend of JULIA DOTSON;
and ZACHARY-MORA DOTSON,

Plaintiffs,

CITY OF FARMINGTON, NEW MEXICO;
DANIEL ESTRADA; DYLAN GOODLUCK;
and WAYLON WASSON,

Defendants.

The incident occurred late in the evening of 4/5/2023. In a domestic
violence call, police officers went to the wrong home. The senior officer
had bad information from his computer terminal but then was confused as
to the correct address; dispatch confirmed the address again. A junior
officer brought to attention that they were at the wrong house but the
senior officer overruled him.

The senior officer repeatedly pounded on the door of the wrong home. Eventually, he heard someone approach the door and the sound of a rifle
being racked. The senior officer backed into the yard, drew his weapon,
and the other two officers drew their weapons. The homeowner opened the
front door, stepped through, and raised his rifle, pointing it at two of
the officers. All three officers shot him; he died. The wife, finding
the husband dead, drew and fired her weapon at police. Police fired
back, but neither hit the other.

The case was dismissed per qualified immunity. In the opinion, the judge concluded,

I. The Defendant officers acted reasonably in light of the
circumstances presented.

"Apprehending a suspect 'by the use of deadly force is a
seizure subject to the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth
Amendment.'" Est. of Waterhouse v. Direzza, 129 F.4th 1212,
1220 (10th Cir. 2025) (quoting Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1,
7 (1985)). Thus, the question presented is whether the Defendant
officers' conduct was reasonable given the circumstances. Graham
v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989). The Supreme Court has
provided a list of considerations, commonly referred to as the
Graham factors, to be applied in making that determination. Id. at
396. They include: "the severity of the crime at issue, whether the
suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or
others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting
to evade arrest by flight." Id.

The judge compared the facts and circumstances of this case, in which
the deceased WAS NOT the suspect and by the time the senior officer was
finally aware that they were at the wrong house, the police were well
aware that the man they were confronting was not a suspect.

It appears to me that the judge is applying the wrong case law.

Next, the judge, in applying qualified immunity, states that the primary consideration is the deceased posing an immediate threat to safety of
the police.

Now, this is the blatant unfairness of the application of qualified
immunity. There is no question that the man threatened the officers. He literally pointed his rifle at them.

But why is his threat to their safety the primary consideration? Why
isn't there a balancing test to apply? After all, the police were in the
wrong and a threat to his safety.

Here is more blatant unfairness.

Plaintiffs contend that Dotson likely did not know that it was
law enforcement officers at his door. Doc. 55 at 12. Perhaps that
is true, perhaps not. Either way, Dotson's understanding of the
events is not material for purposes of the qualified immunity
analysis. The relevant inquiry is not "the arrestee's subjective
perception of the intrusion, but [] whether the officers' actions
are objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances
confronting them." Fisher v. City of Las Cruces, 584 F.3d 888,
894 (10th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting
Graham, 490 U.S. at 397).

For the application of qualified immunity, all the judge can consider is whether the officer was acting in an objectively reasonable manner, not
whether the plaintiff was.

In my opinion, without qualified immunity, this shouldn't have been a
slam dunk for the plaintiff. There should have been an award of damages, reduced by considering that the plaintiff pointed his rifle at men who
were not home invaders but police.

There are so many other ways this could have gone wrong. Hearing the
rifle being racked, the cops might have shot through the door. They
might have forced their way into the home claiming exigent
circumstances, not applicable but they might have done so anyway in the
heat of the moment.

In the exchange of gunfire between the wife and police, there could have
been additional deaths.

But with qualified immunity, there can be no consideration of the reasonableness of the plaintiff's behavior and there can be no balancing
of actions is truly outrageous.

I decided to read the opinion myself. If you want to listen to Steve
LEhto, here's the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpHQBpM2TMU

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-06-02 6:30 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

ERNEST PADILLA, Personal Representative
of the Estate of ROBERT DOTSON, deceased;
KIMBERLY DOTSON, individually
and as parent and next friend of JULIA DOTSON;
and ZACHARY-MORA DOTSON,

Plaintiffs,

CITY OF FARMINGTON, NEW MEXICO;
DANIEL ESTRADA; DYLAN GOODLUCK;
and WAYLON WASSON,

Defendants.

The incident occurred late in the evening of 4/5/2023. In a domestic
violence call, police officers went to the wrong home. The senior officer
had bad information from his computer terminal but then was confused as
to the correct address; dispatch confirmed the address again. A junior officer brought to attention that they were at the wrong house but the
senior officer overruled him.

The senior officer repeatedly pounded on the door of the wrong home. Eventually, he heard someone approach the door and the sound of a rifle
being racked. The senior officer backed into the yard, drew his weapon,
and the other two officers drew their weapons. The homeowner opened the
front door, stepped through, and raised his rifle, pointing it at two of
the officers. All three officers shot him; he died. The wife, finding
the husband dead, drew and fired her weapon at police. Police fired
back, but neither hit the other.

The case was dismissed per qualified immunity. In the opinion, the judge concluded,

I. The Defendant officers acted reasonably in light of the
circumstances presented.

"Apprehending a suspect 'by the use of deadly force is a
seizure subject to the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth
Amendment.'" Est. of Waterhouse v. Direzza, 129 F.4th 1212,
1220 (10th Cir. 2025) (quoting Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1,
7 (1985)). Thus, the question presented is whether the Defendant
officers' conduct was reasonable given the circumstances. Graham
v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989). The Supreme Court has
provided a list of considerations, commonly referred to as the
Graham factors, to be applied in making that determination. Id. at
396. They include: "the severity of the crime at issue, whether the
suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or
others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting
to evade arrest by flight." Id.

The judge compared the facts and circumstances of this case, in which
the deceased WAS NOT the suspect and by the time the senior officer was finally aware that they were at the wrong house, the police were well
aware that the man they were confronting was not a suspect.

It appears to me that the judge is applying the wrong case law.

Next, the judge, in applying qualified immunity, states that the primary consideration is the deceased posing an immediate threat to safety of
the police.

Now, this is the blatant unfairness of the application of qualified
immunity. There is no question that the man threatened the officers. He literally pointed his rifle at them.

But why is his threat to their safety the primary consideration? Why
isn't there a balancing test to apply? After all, the police were in the wrong and a threat to his safety.

Here is more blatant unfairness.

Plaintiffs contend that Dotson likely did not know that it was
law enforcement officers at his door. Doc. 55 at 12. Perhaps that
is true, perhaps not. Either way, Dotson's understanding of the
events is not material for purposes of the qualified immunity
analysis. The relevant inquiry is not "the arrestee's subjective
perception of the intrusion, but [] whether the officers' actions
are objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances
confronting them." Fisher v. City of Las Cruces, 584 F.3d 888,
894 (10th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting
Graham, 490 U.S. at 397).

For the application of qualified immunity, all the judge can consider is whether the officer was acting in an objectively reasonable manner, not whether the plaintiff was.

In my opinion, without qualified immunity, this shouldn't have been a
slam dunk for the plaintiff. There should have been an award of damages, reduced by considering that the plaintiff pointed his rifle at men who
were not home invaders but police.

There are so many other ways this could have gone wrong. Hearing the
rifle being racked, the cops might have shot through the door.

Or identified themselves as police, at which point might well have
realized he was not in danger and put his rifle down. Then he could have
opened the door, explained that he was not the guy they were looking
for, and everyone could have gotten on with their day.

They
might have forced their way into the home claiming exigent
circumstances, not applicable but they might have done so anyway in the
heat of the moment.

In the exchange of gunfire between the wife and police, there could have
been additional deaths.

But with qualified immunity, there can be no consideration of the reasonableness of the plaintiff's behavior and there can be no balancing
of actions is truly outrageous.

I decided to read the opinion myself. If you want to listen to Steve
LEhto, here's the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpHQBpM2TMU

Bad shit happening is part of human life but there's something really frustrating about bad shit happening just because a more senior officer
is too arrogant to listen to a subordinate suggesting that they are at
the wrong address.

--
Rhino

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2025-06-02 6:30 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

ERNEST PADILLA, Personal Representative
of the Estate of ROBERT DOTSON, deceased;
KIMBERLY DOTSON, individually
and as parent and next friend of JULIA DOTSON;
and ZACHARY-MORA DOTSON,

Plaintiffs,

CITY OF FARMINGTON, NEW MEXICO;
DANIEL ESTRADA; DYLAN GOODLUCK;
and WAYLON WASSON,

Defendants.

The incident occurred late in the evening of 4/5/2023. In a domestic >>violence call, police officers went to the wrong home. The senior officer >>had bad information from his computer terminal but then was confused as
to the correct address; dispatch confirmed the address again. A junior >>officer brought to attention that they were at the wrong house but the >>senior officer overruled him.

The senior officer repeatedly pounded on the door of the wrong home. >>Eventually, he heard someone approach the door and the sound of a rifle >>being racked. The senior officer backed into the yard, drew his weapon,
and the other two officers drew their weapons. The homeowner opened the >>front door, stepped through, and raised his rifle, pointing it at two of >>the officers. All three officers shot him; he died. The wife, finding
the husband dead, drew and fired her weapon at police. Police fired
back, but neither hit the other.

The case was dismissed per qualified immunity. In the opinion, the judge >>concluded,

I. The Defendant officers acted reasonably in light of the
circumstances presented.

"Apprehending a suspect 'by the use of deadly force is a
seizure subject to the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth
Amendment.'" Est. of Waterhouse v. Direzza, 129 F.4th 1212,
1220 (10th Cir. 2025) (quoting Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1,
7 (1985)). Thus, the question presented is whether the Defendant
officers' conduct was reasonable given the circumstances. Graham
v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989). The Supreme Court has
provided a list of considerations, commonly referred to as the
Graham factors, to be applied in making that determination. Id. at
396. They include: "the severity of the crime at issue, whether the
suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or
others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting
to evade arrest by flight." Id.

The judge compared the facts and circumstances of this case, in which
the deceased WAS NOT the suspect and by the time the senior officer was >>finally aware that they were at the wrong house, the police were well
aware that the man they were confronting was not a suspect.

It appears to me that the judge is applying the wrong case law.

Next, the judge, in applying qualified immunity, states that the primary >>consideration is the deceased posing an immediate threat to safety of
the police.

Now, this is the blatant unfairness of the application of qualified >>immunity. There is no question that the man threatened the officers. He >>literally pointed his rifle at them.

But why is his threat to their safety the primary consideration? Why
isn't there a balancing test to apply? After all, the police were in the >>wrong and a threat to his safety.

Here is more blatant unfairness.

Plaintiffs contend that Dotson likely did not know that it was
law enforcement officers at his door. Doc. 55 at 12. Perhaps that
is true, perhaps not. Either way, Dotson's understanding of the
events is not material for purposes of the qualified immunity
analysis. The relevant inquiry is not "the arrestee's subjective
perception of the intrusion, but [] whether the officers' actions
are objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances
confronting them." Fisher v. City of Las Cruces, 584 F.3d 888,
894 (10th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting
Graham, 490 U.S. at 397).

For the application of qualified immunity, all the judge can consider is >>whether the officer was acting in an objectively reasonable manner, not >>whether the plaintiff was.

In my opinion, without qualified immunity, this shouldn't have been a
slam dunk for the plaintiff. There should have been an award of damages, >>reduced by considering that the plaintiff pointed his rifle at men who
were not home invaders but police.

There are so many other ways this could have gone wrong. Hearing the
rifle being racked, the cops might have shot through the door.

Or identified themselves as police, at which point might well have
realized he was not in danger and put his rifle down. Then he could have >opened the door, explained that he was not the guy they were looking
for, and everyone could have gotten on with their day.

They were pounding on the door but he was likely in his bedroom. It's questionable if he knew they were police because they shined a flood
light at his front door. He might not have seen the uniforms when he
raised his rifle.

All I'm saying is whether his actions were reasonable shouldn't just be rejected out of hand per qualified immunity.

They might have forced their way into the home claiming exigent >>circumstances, not applicable but they might have done so anyway in
the heat of the moment.

In the exchange of gunfire between the wife and police, there could have >>been additional deaths.

But with qualified immunity, there can be no consideration of the >>reasonableness of the plaintiff's behavior and there can be no balancing
of actions is truly outrageous.

I decided to read the opinion myself. If you want to listen to Steve
LEhto, here's the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpHQBpM2TMU

Bad shit happening is part of human life but there's something really >frustrating about bad shit happening just because a more senior officer
is too arrogant to listen to a subordinate suggesting that they are at
the wrong address.

Absolutely.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-06-02 9:46 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2025-06-02 6:30 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

ERNEST PADILLA, Personal Representative
of the Estate of ROBERT DOTSON, deceased;
KIMBERLY DOTSON, individually
and as parent and next friend of JULIA DOTSON;
and ZACHARY-MORA DOTSON,

Plaintiffs,

CITY OF FARMINGTON, NEW MEXICO;
DANIEL ESTRADA; DYLAN GOODLUCK;
and WAYLON WASSON,

Defendants.

The incident occurred late in the evening of 4/5/2023. In a domestic
violence call, police officers went to the wrong home. The senior officer >>> had bad information from his computer terminal but then was confused as
to the correct address; dispatch confirmed the address again. A junior
officer brought to attention that they were at the wrong house but the
senior officer overruled him.

The senior officer repeatedly pounded on the door of the wrong home.
Eventually, he heard someone approach the door and the sound of a rifle
being racked. The senior officer backed into the yard, drew his weapon,
and the other two officers drew their weapons. The homeowner opened the
front door, stepped through, and raised his rifle, pointing it at two of >>> the officers. All three officers shot him; he died. The wife, finding
the husband dead, drew and fired her weapon at police. Police fired
back, but neither hit the other.

The case was dismissed per qualified immunity. In the opinion, the judge >>> concluded,

I. The Defendant officers acted reasonably in light of the
circumstances presented.

"Apprehending a suspect 'by the use of deadly force is a
seizure subject to the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth
Amendment.'" Est. of Waterhouse v. Direzza, 129 F.4th 1212,
1220 (10th Cir. 2025) (quoting Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1,
7 (1985)). Thus, the question presented is whether the Defendant
officers' conduct was reasonable given the circumstances. Graham
v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989). The Supreme Court has
provided a list of considerations, commonly referred to as the
Graham factors, to be applied in making that determination. Id. at
396. They include: "the severity of the crime at issue, whether the
suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or
others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting
to evade arrest by flight." Id.

The judge compared the facts and circumstances of this case, in which
the deceased WAS NOT the suspect and by the time the senior officer was
finally aware that they were at the wrong house, the police were well
aware that the man they were confronting was not a suspect.

It appears to me that the judge is applying the wrong case law.

Next, the judge, in applying qualified immunity, states that the primary >>> consideration is the deceased posing an immediate threat to safety of
the police.

Now, this is the blatant unfairness of the application of qualified
immunity. There is no question that the man threatened the officers. He
literally pointed his rifle at them.

But why is his threat to their safety the primary consideration? Why
isn't there a balancing test to apply? After all, the police were in the >>> wrong and a threat to his safety.

Here is more blatant unfairness.

Plaintiffs contend that Dotson likely did not know that it was
law enforcement officers at his door. Doc. 55 at 12. Perhaps that
is true, perhaps not. Either way, Dotson's understanding of the
events is not material for purposes of the qualified immunity
analysis. The relevant inquiry is not "the arrestee's subjective
perception of the intrusion, but [] whether the officers' actions
are objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances
confronting them." Fisher v. City of Las Cruces, 584 F.3d 888,
894 (10th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting
Graham, 490 U.S. at 397).

For the application of qualified immunity, all the judge can consider is >>> whether the officer was acting in an objectively reasonable manner, not
whether the plaintiff was.

In my opinion, without qualified immunity, this shouldn't have been a
slam dunk for the plaintiff. There should have been an award of damages, >>> reduced by considering that the plaintiff pointed his rifle at men who
were not home invaders but police.

There are so many other ways this could have gone wrong. Hearing the
rifle being racked, the cops might have shot through the door.

Or identified themselves as police, at which point might well have
realized he was not in danger and put his rifle down. Then he could have
opened the door, explained that he was not the guy they were looking
for, and everyone could have gotten on with their day.

They were pounding on the door but he was likely in his bedroom. It's questionable if he knew they were police because they shined a flood
light at his front door. He might not have seen the uniforms when he
raised his rifle.

Agreed. We don't know what he knew about his visitors - or indeed his
mental health - so it may or may not have been reasonable for him to
bring a rifle to the door. I remember talking to an American who was
visiting our office temporarily. Somehow, the conversation veered into
us discussing hypothetical car breakdowns and what should be done in
that situation. He said he lived in rural Ohio somewhere and any random stranger who just knocked on his door (or the doors of his neighbours)
would likely be greeted with a firearm just because that's how things
were done in his neck of the woods. (I wish now I'd asked him what the
proper protocol was for police or anyone else to use in approaching a stranger's house in the US.)

All I'm saying is whether his actions were reasonable shouldn't just be rejected out of hand per qualified immunity.

Agreed.

They might have forced their way into the home claiming exigent
circumstances, not applicable but they might have done so anyway in
the heat of the moment.

In the exchange of gunfire between the wife and police, there could have >>> been additional deaths.

But with qualified immunity, there can be no consideration of the
reasonableness of the plaintiff's behavior and there can be no balancing >>> of actions is truly outrageous.

I decided to read the opinion myself. If you want to listen to Steve
LEhto, here's the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpHQBpM2TMU

Bad shit happening is part of human life but there's something really
frustrating about bad shit happening just because a more senior officer
is too arrogant to listen to a subordinate suggesting that they are at
the wrong address.

Absolutely.

--
Rhino

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)