Mason-Funk v. City of Neenah, 1:16-cv-00978

Background

On December 5, 2015 Brian Flatoff entered Eagle Nation Cycles with a MAC-10, took multiple hostages and fired on police during a rescue attempt.
Neenah officers formed a "Hasty Team" and attempted entry; Flatoff fired, striking Officer Hoffer's helmet; officers withdrew.
Minutes later Michael Funk (a hostage) exited the shop, dove for cover behind a truck, drew a silver handgun, and moved across the alley toward officers.
Officers Hoffer and Ross, positioned near the alley, fired multiple rounds at Funk as he turned and ran across the alley; Funk was struck repeatedly and later died.
Plaintiff (Funk’s estate) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force and asserted state wrongful-death claims; defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the force was reasonable and, alternatively, that they are immune.
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on the federal claim (qualified immunity and objective reasonableness) and dismissed the state claims without prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment	Funk was a hostage and did not pose an imminent threat; officers had time to assess, should have warned and prioritized hostage safety	Officers reasonably believed Funk was the gunman who had just fired on them and posed an imminent threat, so deadly force was justified	Use of force was objectively reasonable under Graham; summary judgment for defendants
Whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity	Plaintiff: law clearly established that shooting someone who is not an active threat (and a possible hostage) violates the Fourth Amendment	Defendants: no controlling precedent sufficiently similar to place officers on notice their conduct was unlawful given split-second decisions in an active hostage/shooting situation	Officers entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established case on point
Relevance of department standards and expert opinions	Violation of police procedures (e.g., "Priorities of Life") and expert criticisms show unreasonable conduct	Department rules and expert opinion are not dispositive on constitutional reasonableness	Department policies and expert views are immaterial to § 1983 excessive-force inquiry
Whether state-law wrongful-death claims should proceed in federal court	Plaintiff sought to retain state claims	Defendants argued federal claims disposed; court should decline supplemental jurisdiction	Court dismissed state claims without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)

Key Cases Cited

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (Fourth Amendment excessive-force standard: objective reasonableness).
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force permissible only if officer reasonably believes suspect poses imminent threat; warning required when feasible).
Hill v. California, 401 U.S. 797 (1971) (reasonable mistake in identity can justify police seizure).
Milstead v. Kibler, 243 F.3d 157 (4th Cir. 2001) (officer’s reasonable mistaken belief that a person was the shooter can render use of deadly force reasonable).
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity framework: clearly established law and objective reasonableness).
White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (clearly established law must be particularized; general excessive-force principles insufficient).
Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (2004) (§ 1983 qualified-immunity analysis; fact-specificity required to defeat immunity).
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (qualified immunity two-step framework).