Henry v. Purnell
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14391
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- Henry was an unarmed misdemeanor defendant with a warrant for failure to pay child support; Purnell shot Henry after a foot chase.
- Parties stipulated that Purnell intended to use a Taser but mistakenly fired his Glock instead.
- Henry identified himself, then ran; Purnell pursued, firing a single shot to Henry's elbow.
- Discovery revealed differences between Glock and Taser (weight, holster position, safety features) and training gaps.
- District court initially denied summary judgment; on remand, more training materials and MT4 policy context were considered.
- En banc Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that a jury could reasonably find unreasonable force and that qualified immunity did not apply given Garner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Purnell's use of force violated the Fourth Amendment | Henry argues the shooting was unreasonable. | Purnell contends objective reasonableness, given mistake and Garner. | Unreasonable force; material facts support a Fourth Amendment violation. |
| Whether Purnell is entitled to qualified immunity | Henry contends no clearly established right nor reasonable belief in legality. | Purnell asserts reasonable mistake; subjective intent irrelevant under qualified immunity. | Not entitled to qualified immunity; Garner clearly established restraint on unjustified deadly force. |
| Whether state-law MTCA immunity applies to preclude liability | Henry seeks state-law claims; MTCA requires absence of malice or gross negligence for immunity. | MTCA immunity defenses apply if not grossly negligent. | Jury could find gross negligence; MTCA immunity not dispositive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1985) (deadly force limits when no significant threat)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (objective reasonableness standard to analyze excessive force)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (two-step qualified immunity framework (later clarified by Pearson))
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (modifies Saucier; courts may address immunity first)
- Milstead v. Kibler, 243 F.3d 157 (4th Cir.2001) (recognizes honest mistakes in Fourth Amendment analysis)
- Robles v. Prince George's County, 302 F.3d 262 (4th Cir.2002) (illustrates liability concerns in improper conduct during detention)
- McLenagan v. Karnes, 27 F.3d 1002 (4th Cir.1994) (honest mistakes in law enforcement context not per se unconstitutional)