The Denver-based federal appeals court agreed on Thursday that a Lakewood police sergeant did not violate a man’s constitutional rights by shooting and killing him while trying to evacuate him from a burning basement.

Jason Waterhouse was behaving erratically when he barricaded himself in the basement of his sister’s home, then started a fire while officers attempted to coax him out. As police went inside to extricate him from the blaze, Waterhouse ran out of his hiding spot. Sgt. Marc Direzza then shot him.

After a trial judge sided with Direzza and found he did not violate Waterhouse’s clear constitutional rights, Waterhouse’s surviving sister and daughter appealed. They argued Waterhouse was not armed with any weapon and “all he was doing” was attempting to escape the fire.

But a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit concluded the bigger picture, rather than those disputed details, authorized Direzza to use deadly force.

“Sergeant Direzza was in a very dangerous situation regardless of the conduct of Mr. Waterhouse. Fire and smoke had already forced the rapid evacuation of the basement by the other officers. Then a deranged and hostile Mr. Waterhouse unexpectedly barged out of the bedroom and began running in the officers’ direction from less than ten feet away,” wrote Judge Harris L Hartz in the Feb. 20 opinion.

“Mr. Waterhouse could constitute a mortal danger even if he was not armed,” Hartz added, “because a simple physical struggle in that environment could be a matter of life or death.”

Lakewood police responded to the 2400 block of Youngfield Street on Dec. 19, 2019. They learned Waterhouse was barricaded under the stairs of his sister’s home, armed with a hammer and “on something,” possibly alcohol or methamphetamine. Waterhouse was out on bond for allegedly assaulting a police officer, although he had no firearms in the house.

When police told Waterhouse’s sister they would not try to remove him unless she wanted him charged for damaging her house, she responded, “Yeah. Then if that’s what it takes (because) I can’t deal with this.”

A SWAT negotiator attempted to coax Waterhouse out, but he instead screamed obscenities. He then started a fire in the basement, prompting officers to go in and find him. They spent approximately one minute in the basement, as the fire had grown larger. Waterhouse briefly appeared, holding a large stick, before retreating into a bedroom.

The officers evacuated up the stairs. The last ones to leave were Chase Williams, armed with a “less-lethal” weapon, and Direzza, with his gun — although Direzza believed he was alone in the basement. Suddenly, Waterhouse ran out of the bedroom toward the officers. Williams shot him with a bean bag and Direzza shot him with a bullet. Officers pulled Waterhouse outside, but he died from his gunshot wound.

In response to the excessive force lawsuit, Direzza asserted qualified immunity, which is a judicial doctrine shielding government employees from civil lawsuits unless they violate a person’s clearly established rights.

In October 2023, U.S. Magistrate Judge Kathryn A. Starnella determined Direzza was entitled to immunity because an officer in his shoes could have reasonably believed Waterhouse would use deadly force against him. Moreover, no prior court decisions had put Direzza on notice that shooting Waterhouse would have violated the U.S. Constitution.

“Here, even if Defendant mistakenly believed that Mr. Waterhouse was armed, mistakenly believed that Mr. Waterhouse was advancing toward the officers to attack them rather than to turn and run up the stairs, and mistakenly believed that he was alone,” she wrote, “the evidence demonstrates that such mistakes were reasonable.”

On appeal to the 10th Circuit panel, the plaintiffs relied heavily on the argument that Waterhouse was not armed at the time he ran toward the stairs and that Direzza had admitted the shooting “wouldn’t have happened” if Waterhouse lacked a weapon.

“Why is the weapon so important? The place was on fire,” Hartz said during oral arguments. “Here, you didn’t need a deadly weapon to endanger — gravely endanger — the lives of the officers because of where they were: in a confined space that’s on fire.”

“What conduct would have been objectively reasonable?” pressed Judge Gregory A. Phillips. “Do you think he had to wait until such time as he saw if this person ran up the stairs or, instead, took two more lunges and strangled him?”

Only Judge Richard E.N. Federico appeared hesitant to label the shooting reasonable, notwithstanding the burning basement.

“All of our cases have scenarios where officers are tasked with making difficult decisions in what could be characterized as a chaotic environment,” he observed.

Ultimately, the panel explained an officer’s understanding in the moment was what mattered. Given the facts, Hartz wrote, Direzza responded reasonably to the chaotic situation that Waterhouse had largely created.

“While Mr. Waterhouse was unarmed, he was not unthreatening. He was running toward Sergeant Direzza from less than ten feet away in a fiery basement,” Hartz wrote. “None of our cases forbid officers from using lethal force in such a situation.”

The case is Estate of Waterhouse et al. v. Direzza.