McKenney v. Harrison
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6248
8th Cir.2011Background
- Barnes died from injuries after an encounter with Omaha police officers Harrison and Pollreis while serving three warrants for Barnes's arrest.
- Warrants identified Barnes's address as 2860 Manderson Street, a property Barnes owned via his grandfather.
- Officers entered an apparently abandoned house without knocking, suspecting squatters and to determine Barnes's presence.
- Inside, they found Barnes and a woman; Barnes was ordered to dress, during which he moved toward a window while officers observed.
- Pollreis deployed a Taser as Barnes approached the window; Barnes was shocked, then fell from the roof through a porch area and later died.
- McKenney, Barnes's mother and special administrator, sued the officers and the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state tort theories; the district court granted summary judgment for all defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the entry violated Barnes's Fourth Amendment rights | McKenney contends entry without knocking violated rights. | Harrison and Pollreis acted reasonably,likely abandoned property. | Entry not a violation; reasonable belief of abandonment supported qualified immunity. |
| Whether the use of a Taser was excessive force | Pollreis's Taser use and potential policy violations could be unreasonable. | Force was reasonable to prevent escape; taser used in response to flight toward window. | Use was reasonable under Graham v. Connor; no excessive force; qualified immunity as to officers. |
| Whether McKenney's state-law Taser claim against the officers is barred by sovereign immunity | Pollreis's deployment could constitute battery; state law claims survive | Sovereign immunity bars battery-based claims under the Nebraska Tort Claims Act | Sovereign immunity bars the state-law battery claim; no liability against city on this basis. |
| Whether the City can be liable for training/supervision and policies on Taser use | City failed to train/ supervise; policies were inadequate | No municipal liability since excessive-force claim barred; no constitutional violation | No municipal liability; district court properly dismissed due to lack of constitutional violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995) (knock-and-announce rule applied to searches)
- Ward v. Moore, 414 F.3d 968 (8th Cir. 2005) (abandoned property considerations in 4th Amendment context)
- United States v. James, 534 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2008) (abandonment negates privacy expectation)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) (reasonable beliefs, even if mistaken, can sustain lawfulness)
- United States v. Smart, 393 F.3d 767 (8th Cir. 2005) (objective reasonableness standard for searches with mistaken beliefs)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (objective reasonableness in qualified immunity analysis)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (balance intrusion vs. governmental interests; reasonableness in force)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (use of deadly force and proportionality considerations)
- Moyle v. Anderson, 571 F.3d 814 (8th Cir. 2009) (deliberate indifference standard for policies and training)
- Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2010) (taser effects; dart-mode as significant force; falls and injuries)
- Brown v. City of Golden Valley, 574 F.3d 491 (8th Cir. 2009) (taser cases; split on qualified immunity; complexity of taser policy)