Our Arizona Excessive Force Attorneys Take on Wrongful Death Case Against Queen Creek Police

Our Arizona Excessive Force Attorneys Take on Wrongful Death Case Against Queen Creek Police

At Scottsdale Injury Lawyers, LLC, we represent families in the most serious and difficult cases—cases involving wrongful death, government misconduct, and the unconstitutional use of force.

We have been retained as Arizona excessive force attorneys in a tragic case arising out of Queen Creek, where a 72-year-old man lost his life during what should have been a behavioral health intervention. What began as a call for help ended in a fatal police shooting, raising serious legal and constitutional concerns.

This is exactly the type of high-stakes wrongful death case our firm handles regularly.

A Call for Help That Ended in Tragedy

On October 8, 2025, Bradley Bowyer was in crisis.

His family, who were out of the country at the time, received alarming messages indicating that he intended to take his own life. Like so many families facing a similar situation, they did what they believed was right—they called the police for help.

They were not reporting a crime.
They were not asking for enforcement.

They were asking for assistance to protect a loved one in a moment of vulnerability.

Officers made contact with Mr. Bowyer and were told something critically important: he was armed, but he made it clear that he would not harm officers and would only harm himself.

That distinction matters. Under the law, it fundamentally changes how force should be evaluated and the tactical calculus the officers were to employ.

The Scene in Queen Creek

Police ultimately located Mr. Bowyer in an empty church parking lot in Queen Creek, Arizona.

The setting itself is significant. This was not a crowded public area. There was no immediate threat to bystanders. The situation called for patience, distance, and de-escalation—core principles in modern crisis response.

Instead, the encounter escalated.

Officers attempted a less-lethal option that did not resolve the situation. Mr. Bowyer was not holding a weapon in his hands in the critical moments that followed. He turned away from officers and began walking away.

What Body Worn Camera Video Shows

The body-worn camera footage provides a critical, real-time account of what happened next.

The footage captures the progression of the encounter—an interaction that had not yet crossed the line into irreversible action.

Then, in a matter of seconds, everything changed. The officers discharged their firearms striking Mr. Bowyer and causing him to fall to the ground. Then, once on the ground and wounded, after several seconds passed, the officers discharged their firearms a second time.

Two Separate Uses of Deadly Force

One of the most important aspects of this case—and one that is clearly supported by the evidence—is that this was not a single, continuous use of force.

There were two distinct volleys of gunfire.

The first volley occurred while Mr. Bowyer was standing.

The second volley occurred several seconds later, after he had already been shot, fallen to the ground, and was moaning in pain.

This distinction is not just factual—it is legally critical.

Under the Fourth Amendment, each use of force must be independently justified at the moment it is applied. Officers are required to continuously reassess the situation as it evolves. They cannot rely on earlier circumstances to justify later actions if the facts on the ground have changed.

Here, there were two separate decision points:

• The decision to fire while Mr. Bowyer was standing
• The decision to fire again after he was already on the ground

Each of those decisions must be evaluated independently.

The Ninth Circuit Confirms: Multiple Shots Can Be Separate Uses of Force

This principle has been directly addressed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Estate of Hernandez v. City of Los Angeles (decided En Banc June 2, 2025).

In that case, the court made clear that multiple shots—even within seconds—are not automatically treated as one single use of force. Instead, they can constitute separate uses of force requiring independent constitutional justification.

The Ninth Circuit emphasized that officers must continuously reassess the threat throughout an encounter. Even if an initial use of force may be justified, subsequent uses of force can still be unlawful if circumstances have changed.

That principle applies directly here.

The Estate of Hernandez v. City of Los Angeles Case 

In Estate of Hernandez v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir. En Banc June 2, 2025), officers encountered Daniel Hernandez, who was reported to be armed with a knife, behaving erratically and threatening to kill himself. Hernandez exited the vehicle armed with a box cutter. When he was approximately 43 feet from Officer Toni McBride she gave him warnings to drop the knife. He failed to do so and began approaching her taking three or four steps in her direction.

When Hernandez was approximately 36 feet away McBride discharged her weapon two times. Hernadez fell to the ground and then rolled into a position on all fours. McBride then fired another two rounds which caused him to fall on his back and curl up in the fetal position. She then fired two more rounds. The third volley caused him to remain down. The entire shooting sequence lasted 6.2 seconds with 2.5 seconds between the first and second volleys and 1.4 seconds between the second and third volleys.

“It is a different case if the officer initiates a second round of shots after an initial round has clearly incapacitated the suspect and has ended any threat.”

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the first and second volleys were reasonable but that a jury could find that the third volley was unreasonable. They also set forth that by 2020 it was clearly established that an officer cannot reasonably continue shooting a criminal suspect who is on the ground, appears wounded and shows no signs of getting up without reassessing the situation. “It is a different case if the officer initiates a second round of shots after an initial round has clearly incapacitated the suspect and has ended any threat.”

Applying the Law to the Facts

The evidence in this case presents two very different moments:

First Volley

When the first shots were fired, Mr. Bowyer was standing. The question for a jury will be whether, at that moment, he posed an immediate threat justifying deadly force.

Second Volley

By the time of the second volley:

• Mr. Bowyer had already been shot
• He was on the ground moaning
• The circumstances had materially changed

At that point, officers were required to pause, reassess, and determine whether deadly force was still necessary.

If the second volley was not justified—and the evidence raises serious questions about that—then it constitutes a separate, actionable use of excessive force.

This is exactly the type of analysis contemplated by the Ninth Circuit in Hernandez.

The Legal Claims in This Wrongful Death Case

Our office has filed a Notice of Claim asserting multiple causes of action arising from this wrongful death, including:

• Wrongful Death under Arizona law
• Negligence and Gross Negligence
• Battery
• Excessive Force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
• Loss of Familial Association
• Monell Liability for policy and training failures
• Negligent hiring, training, and supervision

These claims reflect both individual officer conduct and broader systemic failures.

The Human Cost of This Wrongful Death

At the center of this case is a family that lost a loved one.

Mr. Bowyer was a 72-year-old man with no criminal history. He was a husband and a father. He was someone experiencing a moment of crisis—not someone threatening the public.

Instead of receiving help, he lost his life.

The Notice of Claim seeks $30,000,000, reflecting the devastating losses suffered by his family and estate.

Why Families Turn to an Arizona Excessive Force Attorney

Cases like this are among the most complex in civil litigation.

They involve:

• Federal constitutional law
• Qualified immunity defenses
• Intensive factual investigation
• High resistance from government entities

That is why it is critical to work with an experienced Arizona excessive force attorney who understands how to build and present these cases.

At Scottsdale Injury Lawyers, LLC, we take on wrongful death and excessive force cases that other firms may avoid—cases where accountability is contested and the stakes are high.

Holding the Line on Accountability

This case is about more than a single moment.

It is about whether:

• Officers followed their training
• De-escalation was attempted
• Force was reassessed as the situation changed

And ultimately, whether this death was preventable.

When there are two separate uses of deadly force, the law requires that both be justified.

If they are not, the Constitution provides a remedy.

Discuss Your Case With an Experienced Wrongful Death Attorney Specializing in Excessive Force

We handle the cases others won’t—high-stakes, complex wrongful death and excessive force claims against government entities. If you are looking for an Arizona excessive force attorney with the experience and resources to take on cases like this, contact Scottsdale Injury Lawyers, LLC for a confidential consultation.

About the author: The content on this page was provided by Scottsdale personal injury attorney and civil rights lawyer Tony Piccuta. Piccuta graduated with honors from Indiana University-Maurer School of Law in Bloomington, Indiana (Previously Ranked Top 35 US News & World Report).  Piccuta took and passed the State bars of Arizona, California, Illinois and Nevada (all on the first try). He actively practices throughout Arizona and California. He is a trial attorney that regularly handles serious personal injury cases and civil rights lawsuits. He has obtained six and seven figure verdicts in both state and federal court. He has been recognized by Super Lawyers for six years straight. He is a member of the Arizona Association of Justice, Maricopa County Bar Association, Scottsdale Bar Association, American Association for Justice, National Police Accountability Project and Consumer Attorneys of California, among other organizations.

Disclaimer: The information on this web site is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information on this page is attorney advertising and was prepared with the assistance of artificial intelligence. Reading and relying upon the content on this page does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you are seeking legal advice, you should contact our law firm for a free consultation and to discuss your specific case and issues.

References:

[1] https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/06/02/21-55994.pdf