Justin Hammett v. Paulding County, Georgia
875 F.3d 1036
11th Cir.2017Background
- Police executed a warrant at the Hammett/Van Cleve home to search for meth; occupants had covered windows and kept lights off, making interior very dark.
- Officers Horsley, Whitener, and Mayfield entered after knocking and announcing; they proceeded through a narrow hallway toward bedrooms where voices were heard.
- Daniel Hammett exited a bedroom into the hallway; officers ordered him to show his hands. Officers describe Hammett as failing to comply, moving an object between hands, and advancing toward Horsley with hands toward Horsley’s face.
- Horsley and Whitener each fired one shot; two bullets struck Hammett (a graze to the left index finger and a fatal shot to the back-left torso). Mayfield fired a third shot that did not hit Hammett.
- Plaintiff (administrator of Hammett’s estate) sued under the Fourth Amendment for excessive force; the district court granted summary judgment for the officers on qualified immunity grounds. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers used excessive (deadly) force in violation of the Fourth Amendment | Hammett surrendered/raised hands and then was shot while retreating; no reasonable threat justified deadly force | Officers reasonably perceived an immediate threat: Hammett refused commands, concealed/moved an object, and advanced toward Horsley in the dark | No constitutional violation; summary judgment for officers (qualified immunity) affirmed |
| Whether disputed facts preclude summary judgment | Plaintiff: materially disputed facts (order of shots, whether hands were up, object in hand) create jury question | Defendants: uncontradicted evidence (announcements, darkness, noncompliance, rapid advance, wound trajectory) forecloses Plaintiff’s surrender/retreat theory | Court finds Plaintiff’s favored interpretation not supported by affirmative evidence; disputes insufficient to defeat summary judgment |
| Whether Mayfield is liable where his shot missed | Plaintiff: Mayfield’s shot contributed to the event and may implicate seizure or excessive force | Defendants: In this Circuit, a missed shot that does not touch or seize the victim does not constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure | Mayfield entitled to qualified immunity; his shot did not seize Hammett so no excessive-force claim succeeds |
| Burden for qualified immunity at summary judgment | Plaintiff: disputed evidence supports a clearly established-right violation | Defendants: conduct was objectively reasonable under the circumstances; even arguable probable cause suffices | Court applies objective-reasonableness test and finds officers entitled to qualified immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (immunity principles for government officials)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity—objective reasonableness standard)
- Filarsky v. Delia, 566 U.S. 377 (public-interest foundation for official immunity)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (qualified immunity doctrine and common-law roots)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (excessive-force claims judged under Fourth Amendment reasonableness)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (deadly force to prevent escape or to repel threat)
- County of Los Angeles v. Mendez, 137 S. Ct. 1539 (reasonableness judged from officer’s perspective)
- Garczynski v. Bradshaw, 573 F.3d 1158 (Eleventh Circuit excessive-force precedent analyzing noncompliance and perceived threat)
- Singletary v. Vargas, 804 F.3d 1174 (deadly force justified where officer had probable cause to believe life was in peril)
- Penley v. Eslinger, 605 F.3d 843 (probable-cause-to-believe-life-in-peril supports deadly force)
- Carr v. Tatangelo, 338 F.3d 1259 (missed shots that do not touch the target do not constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure)