alleges that the defendants unnecessarily and unreasonably used not only excessive force against him, but also deadly force. He asserts that the latter type of force was used when Officer Quinn ordered the police canine to attack him. In Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), the Supreme Court held that a police officer may not use deadly force "unless it is necessary to prevent escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." Id. at 3, 105 S.Ct. 1694. Thus, where a suspect threatens an officer with a weapon such as a gun or a knife, the officer is justified in using deadly force. See, e.g., Billington v. Smith, 292 F.3d 1177, 1185 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Reynolds v. County of San Diego, 84 F.3d
holding that an officer may use deadly force when a fleeing suspect threatens the officer with a weapon recognizing that deadly force is only justified where a suspect poses an immediate threat holding that use of deadly force was justified when suspect in vehicle repeatedly refused orders to raise his hands and the officer perceived that he was holding something holding that deadly force was justified where a suspect violently resisted arrest physically attacked the officer and grabbed the officers gun holding that deadly force was unreasonable where the suspect possessed a gun but was not pointing it at the officers and was not facing the officers when they shot