The 9-Foot Standoff That Shaped Police Law: Lessons from Napouk v Las Vegas
A tense 9-foot standoff between Las Vegas police and a man wielding a homemade machete led to a court decision with lasting implications for law enforcement. In Napouk v Las Vegas, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed qualified immunity protections for officers — here’s what happened, the court’s reasoning, and what every officer can learn from it.
8/19/20252 min read
On October 27, 2018, a late-night call brought Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) officers to a quiet residential neighborhood. Within minutes, a tense standoff unfolded — a suspect armed with what appeared to be a machete advanced on officers, closing the distance to just nine feet before deadly force was used.
Years later, this encounter would become central to a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Napouk v Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, a case that reinforced qualified immunity protections and clarified use-of-force standards for law enforcement.
The Incident Timeline
12:17 a.m. — A resident reports a man peering into cars and homes, carrying what appears to be a black sword or stick.
12:20 a.m. — A second caller describes the suspect — an African American male — carrying a “machete” and acting erratically.
12:25 a.m. — The first caller updates dispatch: the suspect is now entering backyards and looking into windows, possibly armed.
12:31 a.m. — Sergeant Buford Kenton and Officer Cameran Gunn arrive, receiving updates that the suspect is wearing a baseball cap, sunglasses, and a camo backpack.
12:34 a.m. — The officers spot Napouk emerging from between two houses, holding what they believe is a machete. Commands to “put it on the ground” are ignored.
12:39 a.m. — After repeated commands and a “Code Red” request for emergency backup, Napouk advances toward Sgt. Kenton, closing the gap to just nine feet. Both officers fire, striking him multiple times.
The weapon is later identified as a 22-inch homemade plastic machete.
The Legal Battle
Napouk’s family sued LVMPD and the officers, alleging:
Excessive force (Fourth Amendment)
Deprivation of familial relations (Fourteenth Amendment)
Municipal liability under Monell v Department of Social Services
State law claims under Nevada law
The U.S. District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The plaintiffs appealed.
The Ninth Circuit’s Ruling
Fourth Amendment Claim:
Applying Graham v Connor, the court found the use of deadly force reasonable given:
The immediate threat (advancing with a weapon)
Refusal to comply with commands
Close proximity (nine feet)
Even if force had been unreasonable, qualified immunity applied because no “clearly established” law prohibited the officers’ actions.
Fourteenth Amendment Claim:
No evidence showed officers acted with an intent to harm unrelated to law enforcement objectives.
Monell Claim:
With no constitutional violation, municipal liability did not apply.
State Law Claims:
Nevada’s discretionary-function immunity shielded the officers from state law liability.
The Dissent
Judge Gabriel Sanchez dissented, arguing:
A jury could find Napouk posed no imminent threat
He was not committing a crime or resisting arrest
Non-lethal alternatives were available
Key Takeaways for Law Enforcement
Distance Matters — The “9-foot” detail became central in the court’s analysis of threat perception.
Body-Worn Cameras are Critical — Both officers’ cameras provided decisive evidence of commands, warnings, and suspect actions.
Qualified Immunity Holds Strong — Absent “clearly established” precedent, courts will generally defer to officers’ split-second judgments.
Command and Cover — Maintaining distance and using cover reinforced the officers’ position in court.
Documentation Protects — The DA’s report and video evidence aligned with the officers’ accounts, bolstering their defense.
Why This Case Matters Nationwide
While the incident happened in Las Vegas, the Ninth Circuit’s decision sends a broader message: in fast-moving, armed-suspect scenarios, courts may uphold deadly force when a suspect advances within dangerous range — even if the weapon turns out to be fake.
For officers, trainers, and legal advisors, Napouk v Las Vegas is a reminder that tactical choices in the field can determine legal outcomes in the courtroom.
Author’s Note:
If you’re an officer, share this case in roll call or training — these legal precedents could one day protect your decisions in the field.
📌 More case breakdowns and tactical law updates at tacticsandtrials.com
