Damon Wilson v. Prince George's County, Md
893 F.3d 213
4th Cir.2018Background
- Wilson broke into his ex-girlfriend’s apartment, assaulted her, then left and later returned armed with a pocket knife; she called 911 and identified Wilson to police.
- Officer Brendan Gill confronted Wilson outside; Wilson held a pocket knife, ignored repeated commands to drop it, and was observed cutting/stabbing himself rather than threatening others.
- Witness estimates placed Wilson between about 8 and 20 feet from Officer Gill when Wilson "stumbled" forward and Gill fired five shots, hitting Wilson multiple times.
- District court granted summary judgment for Officer Gill and Prince George’s County, finding the shooting objectively reasonable and awarding qualified immunity; Wilson appealed.
- Fourth Circuit held the shooting, when viewed in plaintiff’s favor, violated the Fourth Amendment (excessive force), but concluded the right was not clearly established in October 2012 and therefore Officer Gill is entitled to qualified immunity.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for intentional infliction of emotional distress and on the County’s respondeat superior claim, vacated summary judgment on remaining Maryland-law claims against Gill, and remanded for consideration of state-law immunity issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Gill's shooting constitute excessive force under the Fourth Amendment? | Wilson: firing five shots at a man who was self-harming and not threatening others was excessive. | Gill: deadly force was reasonable because Wilson was armed, noncompliant, and posed a safety risk. | Court: viewing facts in plaintiff’s favor, a jury could find force excessive; district court erred. |
| Is Officer Gill entitled to qualified immunity for the shooting? | Wilson: the law clearly prohibited shooting a nonthreatening, self-harming person armed only with a pocketknife. | Gill: no clearly established right forbade his conduct under these facts. | Court: right was not clearly established in Oct. 2012; Gill entitled to qualified immunity. |
| Do Wilson's Maryland constitutional and battery claims survive? | Wilson: state constitutional provisions and battery law parallel Fourth Amendment and support liability. | Gill: immunity defenses under Maryland law may apply and district court previously dismissed based on federal ruling. | Court: federal Fourth Amendment violation implies state constitutional and battery claims remain; remanded for district court to consider Maryland immunity. |
| Is Prince George’s County liable under respondeat superior? | Wilson: County responsible for officer conduct. | County: no liability because either no constitutional violation or governmental immunity applies; plaintiff abandoned arguments. | Court: affirmed summary judgment for County; plaintiff abandoned challenge to County liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step qualified immunity framework assessing constitutional violation then whether right was clearly established)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (discretion to address qualified immunity steps in either order)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective-reasonableness standard for excessive force under Fourth Amendment)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force not permitted against nonimmediate threats)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity standard—clearly established law)
- Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018) (warning against defining clearly established law at high level of generality, especially in Fourth Amendment cases)
- Cooper v. Sheehan, 735 F.3d 153 (4th Cir.) (possession of weapon alone does not always justify deadly force)
- Clem v. Corbeau, 284 F.3d 543 (4th Cir.) (use of deadly force against erratic/unarmed individual unreasonable)
- Sigman v. Town of Chapel Hill, 161 F.3d 782 (4th Cir.) (qualified immunity where armed individual ignored commands and threatened officers)
- Anderson v. Russell, 247 F.3d 125 (4th Cir.) (deadly force reasonable where officer perceived imminent threat from armed suspect)
- Slattery v. Rizzo, 939 F.2d 213 (4th Cir.) (shooting reasonable where suspect ignored commands and moved toward officers with object)
- Barbre v. Pope, 935 A.2d 699 (Md. 2007) (Maryland court denial of immunity for shooting nonthreatening individual)
- Richardson v. McGriff, 762 A.2d 48 (Md. 2000) (Maryland court affirmed use of deadly force against apparent armed threat)