Hope White v. United States
959 F.3d 328
| 8th Cir. | 2020Background
- ATF undercover operation planned to catch suspects who had said they intended to commit a robbery and murder; Special Response Team (SRT) including Agent Bernard Hansen was embedded in a U-Haul to execute the arrest.
- Hansen's role: first out of the U-Haul, identify threats, shout "Police," and provide cover as other agents exited; he was briefed that suspects were likely armed and dangerous.
- As agents exited, a suspect vehicle began reversing toward the agents; Hansen fired three rounds at the driver side; two rounds hit a backseat passenger and one fatally wounded Myron Pollard, a front-seat passenger who was not a suspect.
- ATF had multiple surveillance cameras but recordings were incomplete or low quality; ATF copied portions and erased original server data, prompting a spoliation claim by Pollard’s mother, Hope White.
- District court denied spoliation sanctions, held for the United States on the FTCA claim (concluding Hansen acted reasonably or public duty doctrine barred recovery), and a jury returned verdict for Hansen on the Bivens claim.
- Eighth Circuit affirmed the FTCA judgment, rejected spoliation-bad-faith finding challenge, and vacated/remanded the Bivens judgment to be dismissed under the FTCA judgment-bar doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spoliation / adverse inference | Deleted original camera data in bad faith; full video would show shots fired after car was disabled | Data loss due to wireless interruption; ATF followed standard copying procedures; no bad faith | No bad faith found; district court did not abuse discretion in refusing adverse inference |
| FTCA negligence / reasonableness of deadly force | Hansen breached duty; shooting was negligent and caused Pollard's death | Hansen reasonably used deadly force to protect agents from a reversing vehicle believed to be a lethal threat | Judgment for the United States affirmed: Hansen acted reasonably under Missouri law; FTCA claim fails |
| Bivens claim v. Hansen | Seeks Bivens damages for Fourth Amendment/wrongful-death conduct | Bivens claim asserted in same suit as FTCA claim | FTCA judgment-bar (28 U.S.C. § 2676) bars Bivens action on same subject matter; Bivens judgment vacated and dismissal directed |
| Evidentiary rulings (suspects' plans, witness conviction) | Some rulings prejudiced White and required new trial | Evidence of suspects' robbery/kill plans was relevant to reasonableness; conviction admissible under Rule 609 | District court did not abuse discretion in admitting that evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognizing an implied damages remedy for certain constitutional violations)
- Simmons v. Himmelreich, 136 S. Ct. 1843 (FTCA judgment bar generally precludes subsequent suit against federal employee on same subject)
- Molzof v. United States, 502 U.S. 301 (FTCA liability determined by reference to state law)
- Stepnes v. Ritschel, 663 F.3d 952 (severe spoliation sanctions require bad faith)
- Johnson v. Ready Mixed Concrete Co., 424 F.3d 806 (appellate review standard for spoliation instruction discretion)
- Unus v. Kane, 565 F.3d 103 (FTCA judgment can bar parallel Bivens claims)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (FTCA and Bivens viewed as parallel, complementary causes of action)