Estelle Smith v. Richard L. LePage, Jr.
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15644
11th Cir.2016Background
- March 2010: Dirk Smith broke into his house after forgetting keys; babysitter called police because Smith was not supposed to be there and the couple’s two young children were inside alone.
- Officers entered the home without a warrant after seeing a shattered sliding door and hearing the babysitter’s report that Smith was inside and emotional.
- At the top of stairs Smith held a kitchen knife and refused commands to drop it; Officer Ings tased him once, Smith fell, dropped the knife (per eyewitness child), then ran into his bathroom and barricaded himself.
- Multiple officers, including Sgt. Gamble, attempted to negotiate; officers later kicked the bathroom door; a second taser deployment occurred (ineffective).
- When Smith exited the bathroom officers say he charged with a knife; Officers Ings and LePage shot and killed him. Plaintiffs sued under § 1983 and Georgia law; district court granted summary judgment on entry, taser, and supervisory claims but denied it on shooting claims; both parties appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of warrantless entry | Entry was unlawful; Fourth Amendment barred warrantless home entry | Exigent circumstances justified entry to protect children and prevent harm | Entry lawful: exigent-circumstances exception applied given broken door, babysitter’s report, children inside and Smith’s emotional state; summary judgment for officers affirmed |
| Use of tasers (two deployments) | Tasing(s) were excessive | Tasers were reasonable to subdue a belligerent, noncompliant suspect | First and second single taser discharges were reasonable under precedent; summary judgment for officers on taser claims affirmed |
| Deadly force (fatal shooting) | Shooting was unconstitutional because Smith had dropped the knife and was unarmed when he left the bathroom | Officers reasonably believed Smith was armed and posed an immediate threat | Genuine dispute of material fact (armed vs unarmed); cannot resolve on summary judgment; denial of qualified immunity on shooting claims affirmed for jury to decide |
| Supervisory liability (Sgt. Gamble) | Gamble escalated situation and is liable for second tasing and shooting | Gamble did not personally participate nor direct unlawful force; discretionary judgment (e.g., not calling SWAT) not ministerial | No supervisory liability: second tasing lawful; no evidence Gamble directed or knew subordinates would act unlawfully; state-law claims fail (no ministerial duty or actual malice); summary judgment for Gamble affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (exigent-circumstances warrant exception)
- United States v. Holloway, 290 F.3d 1331 (exigent circumstances and emergencies)
- Roberts v. Spielman, 643 F.3d 899 (suicidal/endangerment exigency can justify entry)
- United States v. Timmann, 741 F.3d 1170 (absence of urgent indicia defeats exigency)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective-reasonableness standard for excessive force)
- Zivojinovich v. Barner, 525 F.3d 1059 (taser use against belligerent, noncompliant suspect not excessive)
- Draper v. Reynolds, 369 F.3d 1270 (tasing noncompliant suspect can be reasonable)
- Oliver v. Fiorino, 586 F.3d 898 (multiple taser applications may be excessive)
- McCullough v. Antolini, 559 F.3d 1201 (elements for constitutionally permissible deadly force)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (deadly force impermissible where suspect poses no immediate threat)
- Salvato v. Miley, 790 F.3d 1286 (shooting unarmed, retreating suspect unreasonable)
- Mercado v. City of Orlando, 407 F.3d 1152 (supervisory liability requires causal link or direction)
- Hewett v. Jarrard, 786 F.2d 1080 (examples of personal participation by supervisor)