233 A.3d 475
N.J.2020Background:
- On Sept. 11, 2012, Detective Rafael Martinez and other officers attempted to stop Bryheim Baskin in Camden; Baskin reversed his car into an unmarked police vehicle and fled on foot.
- Baskin was observed carrying a handgun during the pursuit, dropped it, picked it up, and later (out of Martinez’s view) tossed it into a walled backyard where he became cornered.
- Baskin’s account, supported by a civilian eyewitness, is that when cornered he raised his empty hands in surrender and was shot in the abdomen as Martinez rounded the corner.
- Martinez’s account is that, when he rounded the corner, he saw Baskin turning and pointing a black object he believed to be a gun, and then shot in fear for his life.
- Officers recovered two cell phones near where Baskin fell and the handgun elsewhere in the yard; Baskin suffered serious permanent injuries.
- The trial court granted Martinez qualified immunity and dismissed the § 1983 claim; the Appellate Division reversed; the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the reversal, holding disputed material facts must be viewed for the plaintiff on summary judgment and remanding for trial.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Martinez was entitled to qualified immunity on summary judgment for using deadly force during apprehension | Baskin: accept his and eyewitness testimony that he had empty hands raised in surrender when shot; under those facts deadly force was objectively unreasonable and qualified immunity fails | Martinez: in the totality of the circumstances (car crash, flight while armed, perceived pointing of object) a reasonable officer could have believed deadly force was necessary; any mistake was reasonable so qualified immunity applies | Court held that for summary-judgment purposes it must accept Baskin’s version; shooting a non‑threatening, surrendering suspect is clearly establishedly unlawful, so Martinez was not entitled to qualified immunity and factual disputes must go to a jury |
| Whether disputed factual issues (e.g., position/content of hands) can be resolved at summary judgment | Baskin: disputes are material and must be viewed in plaintiff’s favor; jury should decide credibility | Martinez: even accepting plaintiff’s facts, his split‑second perception could be reasonable and immunity should be decided as a matter of law | Court held credibility and factual conflicts cannot be resolved by the court on summary judgment; the jury must decide those historical facts, then immunity can be reconsidered post‑trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (excessive-force reasonableness standard)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (deadly force against fleeing suspect is permissible only if suspect poses significant threat)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (qualified immunity two‑step inquiry)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity protects officials from suits unless clearly established law violated)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (courts may address clearly‑established prong first)
- Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (need for particularized analysis of whether law was clearly established)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (qualified immunity protects actions in hazy border between excessive and acceptable force)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (clearly established law must be particularized to the facts)
- Hemphill v. Schott, 141 F.3d 412 (2d Cir.) (officer not entitled to immunity where suspect raised arms in surrender)
- Gray‑Hopkins v. Prince George’s County, 309 F.3d 224 (4th Cir.) (denying qualified immunity where evidence showed hands were raised at time of shooting)