Ronald Moore v. City of Memphis
853 F.3d 866
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Memphis Animal Services received repeated complaints about potential animal cruelty at Donald Moore Sr.’s home; neighbors reported threats and that Moore appeared armed.
- Animal-control officers and Memphis police previously encountered Moore; he refused to cooperate, gestured as if armed, and (per a neighbor) threatened to “shoot first” if officers returned.
- A search warrant was obtained for Moore’s home for suspected misdemeanor animal-cruelty evidence; Lieutenant Colonel Worthy authorized TACT (a SWAT-like unit) to serve the warrant.
- TACT executed a nighttime dynamic (no‑knock) entry using flash‑bang devices; officers announced “police” and “search warrant” while breaching and deploying flash‑bangs.
- Moore retreated into his bedroom and called 911; Penny entered the bedroom after a flash‑bang, perceived Moore pointing a semi‑automatic pistol at him, yelled “Hands, Don!”, and fired three shots, killing Moore. Moore’s firearm was found in his hand with a round chambered.
- Plaintiffs (Moore’s children) sued Officer Penny and the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force; the district court granted summary judgment to defendants and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of TACT/no‑knock entry | Deployment of TACT and no‑knock dynamic entry were unreasonable for misdemeanor warrant | Officers had reason to fear danger (threats, prior armed gesture); no‑knock was justified | No‑knock/dynamic entry was reasonable under Richards and the circumstances; decision to use TACT not a separate Fourth Amendment use of force |
| Use of flash‑bangs | Flash‑bangs were unnecessary and posed risk | Flash‑bangs were reasonably used to disorient an allegedly armed, dangerous subject and posed no special hazard here | Use of flash‑bangs was reasonable under a balancing test (Bing) given safety concerns and lack of special risk |
| Deadly force (Penny’s shooting) | Dispute that Moore pointed a gun (could have been phone); shooting was excessive | Penny reasonably believed Moore pointed a firearm and posed imminent danger; split‑second decision | Penny’s use of deadly force was objectively reasonable; officer had probable cause to believe Moore posed serious threat (Garner, Pollard) |
| Municipal liability (City of Memphis) | City should be liable despite individual officers’ qualified immunity or defense | Municipal liability requires an underlying constitutional violation by individuals | No municipal liability where no constitutional violation by the individual officers was found |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (establishes knock‑and‑announce requirement)
- Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (permits no‑knock where reasonable suspicion of danger or futility)
- United States v. Bates, 84 F.3d 790 (no‑knock entry precedent in Sixth Circuit)
- Bing ex rel. Bing v. City of Whitehall, Ohio, 456 F.3d 555 (balancing test for use of stun/flash devices)
- Krause v. Jones, 765 F.3d 675 (considerations about risk from flash‑bangs)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (deadly force standard: probable cause to believe suspect poses serious threat)
- Pollard v. City of Columbus, Ohio, 780 F.3d 395 (review of deadly‑force reasonableness from perspective of reasonable officer on scene)