Jerome Weinmann v. Patrick McClone
787 F.3d 444
7th Cir.2015Background
- On Nov. 12, 2007, Susan Weinmann called 911 reporting her husband Jerome was suicidal and had access to a long gun; dispatcher relayed this to Deputy Patrick McClone.
- McClone arrived, peered through two west-side windows, knocked on the garage door with no response, and then forcibly entered by kicking the door in.
- Jerome contends he was sitting in a lawn chair with a 12-gauge shotgun resting across his lap and never pointed or threatened anyone; McClone perceived the gun as pointed at him.
- McClone shot Jerome four times, causing severe injuries (partial thumb amputation, jaw replacement); Jerome sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force.
- The district court denied McClone summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, finding disputed material facts; McClone appealed interlocutorily.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding genuine factual disputes precluded resolution of qualified immunity on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether shooting Jerome violated the Fourth Amendment (excessive force) | Jerome: he was passive, sitting with gun across lap and posed no threat — shooting was unconstitutional | McClone: objectively reasonable belief he faced imminent danger when he entered garage | Court: Disputed facts (whether gun was pointed); under Jerome’s version, use of deadly force violated Fourth Amendment |
| Whether McClone is entitled to qualified immunity | Jerome: right not to be shot unless posing threat was clearly established; no analogous case needed because conduct was plainly excessive | McClone: reasonable mistake of fact/law; forced-entry into enclosed space justified shoot-on-sight; no clearly established law forbidding his conduct | Court: Qualified immunity not appropriate at summary-judgment stage because factual disputes remain and, alternatively, force could be plainly excessive in Jerome’s account |
| Whether the right was clearly established at the time | Jerome: Graham/Garner and circuit authority clearly prohibit shooting suicidal people who do not threaten others | McClone: no controlling precedent forbidding shooting when weapon perceived aimed at officer | Court: Graham/Garner and other authority clearly establish no-shoot rule absent a threat; either analogous precedent or plainly excessive standard defeats immunity |
| Whether appellate jurisdiction exists to review denial of qualified immunity | N/A (procedural) | McClone: interlocutory appeal permitted under Mitchell v. Forsyth | Court: Jurisdiction exists only to review legal determination that factual disputes preclude immunity; here factual disputes exist, so appeal appropriately considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective-reasonableness standard for excessive-force claims)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force permissible only to prevent escape where officer has probable cause that suspect poses serious threat)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (interlocutory appeals permitted for denials of qualified immunity)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity protects officials unless they violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (qualified immunity can protect reasonable mistakes of law and fact in excessive-force cases)
- Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014) (reasonableness judged from perspective of reasonable officer on scene; allow for split-second judgments)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (clearly established law must be particularized; courts should not define rights at high level of generality)
- Bell v. Irwin, 321 F.3d 637 (7th Cir. 2003) (deadly force justified when suspect points a gun at officer)