Mason-Funk v. City of Neenah, 895 F.3d 504

On Dec. 5, 2015 Brian Flatoff entered a Neenah motorcycle shop with a MAC-10 and took hostages; police formed a SWAT "hasty response" team that entered the rear door.
During the entry Flatoff fired; Officer Hoffer's helmet was struck and the team retreated. Officers Hoffer and Ross believed the team had been ambushed.
Minutes later Michael Funk escaped out the rear, was seen near Flatoff's truck holding a silver handgun, and ran across the alley away from the shop.
Hoffer and Ross fired without warning as Funk ran; they shot him multiple times over about five seconds, killing him; they later said they mistakenly believed Funk was Flatoff.
Funk’s widow sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive/deadly force; the district court granted summary judgment to officers and city on both objective-reasonableness and qualified immunity grounds.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed, resolving the case on qualified immunity: existing precedent did not clearly establish that the officers’ split‑second use of deadly force in a chaotic, armed hostage situation (without warning) violated a clearly established Fourth Amendment right.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers violated clearly established Fourth Amendment right by using deadly force on Funk	Mason‑Funk: officers had duty in hostage situations to protect innocents, distinguish suspect from innocents, and not use deadly force without warning	Hoffer/Ross: split‑second decision in active, dangerous hostage/ambush context; Funk appeared armed and posed imminent threat	Held: Not clearly established; officers entitled to qualified immunity
Whether warning was required before deadly force	Mason‑Funk: Garner requires warning "where feasible" before deadly force to prevent escape	Defendants: chaotic, dangerous situation and immediate threat made warnings not required/feasible	Held: Precedent did not clearly require a warning under these specific facts
Whether mere possession of a gun made deadly force unreasonable	Mason‑Funk: cited cases holding mere possession insufficient to justify deadly force	Defendants: those cases factually different; here officers had been shot at moments earlier	Held: Controlling precedent did not squarely govern these facts; no clear violation
Whether qualified immunity applies on summary judgment	Mason‑Funk: factual record creates dispute and should defeat immunity	Defendants: no clearly established law on these particular facts; immunity applies	Held: Qualified immunity dispositive; summary judgment for defendants affirmed

Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018) (requires specificity to clearly establish Fourth Amendment violations in split‑second force decisions)
White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (cautions against defining clearly established law at high level of generality)
Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (2015) (qualified immunity protects all but plainly incompetent or knowing violations)
Ashcroft v. al‑Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (qualified immunity gives officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (two‑part qualified immunity framework; courts may address either prong first)
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force to prevent escape permissible only if suspect poses threat of serious physical harm; warning "where feasible")
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (excessive‑force analysis is fact‑specific; focus on immediate threat and flight/resistance)
Weinmann v. McClone, 787 F.3d 444 (7th Cir. 2015) (suicidal, armed but nonthreatening subject retained right to be free from deadly force)
Cooper v. Sheehan, 735 F.3d 153 (4th Cir. 2013) (mere possession of firearm insufficient where no threat or sudden movement and officers not identified themselves)
Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190 (5th Cir. 1996) (declined qualified immunity where officer used deadly force on an armed individual who made no threatening movements)