Akpore v. Hassell et al

On December 6, 2018, in Tucson, Arizona, Udo Akpore, a man experiencing a mental health crisis, was armed with a knife and behaving erratically when officers responded to 911 calls. Body-worn camera footage showed officers ordering Akpore to drop the weapon; moments later, Officer William Hassell fired multiple shots, killing him. The estate of Udo Akpore filed a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Officer Hassell and the City of Tucson, alleging excessive use of deadly force, violations of the Fourth Amendment, and a failure to employ recognized crisis intervention tactics. The complaint further argued that the officers escalated the encounter rather than de-escalating, ignoring clear signs of mental illness. The case highlighted systemic deficiencies in how police handle behavioral health emergencies.

The case did not go to trial. In September 2021, the Tucson City Council voted to approve a $2.75 million settlement with the family of Udo Akpore to resolve the federal lawsuit, closing the civil rights claims against Officer Hassell and the city without an admission of liability.

The central dispute was whether Officer Hassell’s use of lethal force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances, given that Akpore was in the midst of a mental health crisis and posed a potential but not immediate deadly threat. The litigation also focused on the adequacy of crisis intervention training and whether the officers’ pre-shooting tactics needlessly created a situation requiring deadly force, potentially constituting deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with mental disabilities.

The Akpore case intensified public scrutiny of the Tucson Police Department’s use-of-force protocols and its response to mental health calls. Community activists and civil rights organizations used the incident to advocate for mandatory de-escalation training, the expansion of mobile crisis teams as alternatives to armed police response, and more robust accountability mechanisms for officers. The substantial settlement also reinforced a national conversation about the financial and human costs of failing to adequately fund and integrate mental health crisis services within public safety systems.