47 F.4th 468
6th Cir.2022Background
- On Aug. 21, 2018, Officers Fox and Austin went to the Campbells’ home for a welfare check after hang-up 9‑1‑1 calls; Fox knocked without announcing he was police.
- Through a closed door Mark Campbell asked “You got a gun?” and said “I got one too.” As Mark began to open the door, Fox fired eight shots through the front door; no one was hit and no gun was recovered.
- Mark briefly exited onto the porch/yard several times after the shooting, refused orders to get on the ground, and was later arrested by other officers; aggravated‑assault charges were dismissed.
- The Campbells sued Fox under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force; the district court granted summary judgment for all defendants except Fox and denied Fox qualified immunity.
- The Sixth Circuit declined to review Fox’s statute‑of‑limitations defense on interlocutory appeal, and affirmed denial of qualified immunity, holding (accepting plaintiffs’ version of facts) that shooting into the house effected a Fourth Amendment seizure and that deadly force was not objectively reasonable and was clearly established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review statute‑of‑limitations defense on interlocutory appeal | Campbells’ §1983 claim is timely under applicable statute | Fox argues one‑year Tennessee limitations bar the claim | Court lacks appellate jurisdiction to resolve SOL now (collateral‑order doctrine not met) |
| Whether a Fourth Amendment seizure occurred when Fox fired into the house | Shooting at the door restrained occupants and they submitted by remaining inside | Fox says occupants did not submit and were not seized (they later moved about) | Yes: firing at the home was a show of authority that, objectively viewed, restrained movement and seized occupants |
| Whether Fox’s use of deadly force was objectively reasonable | Given facts favoring plaintiffs (unarmed, nonthreatening), deadly force was unreasonable | Fox claims he reasonably perceived a gun and an imminent threat when door opened | Genuine factual dispute about what Fox perceived; accepting plaintiffs’ version, use of deadly force was unreasonable and not justified |
| Whether the constitutional right was clearly established | Prior Sixth Circuit precedent (esp. Floyd) put officers on notice that shooting an unthreatening person is unlawful | Fox argues no on‑point precedent put him on fair notice that his conduct was a seizure or unlawful | Held no qualified immunity at summary stage: law (including Floyd and other circuit precedent) clearly established that shooting under these alleged circumstances violated the Fourth Amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (use‑of‑force claims analyzed under Fourth Amendment reasonableness)
- Torres v. Madrid, 141 S. Ct. 989 (distinguishes seizures by force from seizures by acquisition of control)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (seizure occurs if a reasonable person would not feel free to leave)
- Hodari D. v. California, 499 U.S. 621 (no seizure where subject does not submit to a show of authority)
- Ewolski v. City of Brunswick, 287 F.3d 492 (6th Cir.) (police actions surrounding a home can terminate freedom to leave and effect a seizure)
- Floyd v. City of Detroit, 518 F.3d 398 (6th Cir.) (denial of qualified immunity where officers shot an unarmed, nonthreatening person)
- Jacobs v. Alam, 915 F.3d 1028 (6th Cir.) (missed shots can still constitute a seizure and support excessive‑force liability)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (deadly force permissible only if officer has probable cause to believe suspect poses serious threat)