Blogs

When can deadly force be reasonable against an unarmed suspect?

9/29/26

By: Xander Melnick

In Callaway v. Adcock, ___ F.4th ___ (11th Cir. Sept. 22, 2026), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addressed whether an officer may constitutionally use deadly force against an unarmed suspect. The Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit deadly force where a reasonable officer could perceive an imminent threat of serious bodily harm, even in the absence of a conventional weapon.

The case arose from the fatal shooting of a man suffering from aggressive brain cancer who, according to the record, experienced significant cognitive and behavioral changes following surgery and treatment. During an encounter with first responders and law enforcement, he engaged in violent conduct, resisted attempts to restrain him, ignored commands, and physically confronted officers. After non-lethal measures proved ineffective and the situation continued to escalate, an officer used deadly force.

At its core, Callaway addresses a recurring issue in § 1983 litigation: whether the absence of a weapon necessarily renders deadly force unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The estate argued that because the decedent was unarmed, the shooting constituted excessive force. The Eleventh Circuit rejected that argument and emphasized that the constitutional inquiry does not turn solely on whether a suspect possessed a firearm, knife, or other traditional weapon. Instead, the relevant question is whether a reasonable officer confronting the circumstances at the time could have perceived a threat of serious bodily injury or death.

In a detailed opinion authored by Judge Carnes, the Court reiterated that Fourth Amendment reasonableness must be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene rather than through the lens of hindsight. The Eleventh Circuit explained that serious bodily harm can be inflicted without a conventional weapon and that officers need not wait until they are actually injured before responding to an imminent threat. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court concluded that the use of deadly force was objectively reasonable and therefore did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

The implications of Callaway are substantial. The decision reinforces that the Fourth Amendment does not impose a categorical prohibition on deadly force against an unarmed individual. Rather, courts must evaluate the totality of the circumstances to determine whether a reasonable officer could have perceived an immediate threat of serious physical harm.

The case is also notable because it involved an individual suffering from significant medical and cognitive impairments. While the Court acknowledged those circumstances, it emphasized that the constitutional inquiry remains focused on the facts confronting the officer at the time force is used. As such, Callaway will likely become an important authority for defendants responding to excessive-force claims involving violent, rapidly evolving encounters where the alleged threat arises from a suspect’s conduct rather than from a traditional weapon.

If you have any questions about the Callaway case or §1983 claims, please contact attorney Xander Melnick at xander.melnick@fmglaw.com or any of the attorneys in FMG’s Government Law Section.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.