Sandra Krause v. Brian Jones
765 F.3d 675
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- Marshals sought arrest warrant for Krause on felony cocaine possession; Krause fled to bedroom and armed himself; SWAT negotiator engaged for ~8 hours; flash-bang and auto-fire weapons plan adopted prior to entry; Krause fired at officers, fatally wounding him after they entered; Krause had 20 gunshot wounds and one earlier shot toward doorway; plaintiff (Krause’s mother) sued for Fourth Amendment violations and gross negligence, district court granted summary judgment on qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the use of a flash bang reasonable under Fourth Amendment? | Krause’s family contends device was unlawful. | Officers reasonably used device to minimize risk. | Yes, use was reasonable. |
| Was the deadly force against Krause reasonable given the circumstances? | Jones’s shooting was excessive and unnecessary. | Officer acted to neutralize a serious threat. | Yes, deadly force reasonable. |
| Did pre-entry conduct (automatic-fire setting) render the claim of gross negligence viable? | Plaintiff argues pre-entry planning created risk. | Plan appropriately balanced safety and success. | Gross negligence not shown; immunity applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (reasonableness standard in use-of-force analysis)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1985) (probable cause to believe suspect poses serious threat standard)
- Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012 (U.S. 2014) (continued shooting until threat ends; on-scene perspective)
- Bing ex rel. Bing v. City of Whitehall, 456 F.3d 555 (6th Cir. 2006) (second flash bang may be unreasonable in some contexts)
- Simmonds v. Genesee Cnty., 682 F.3d 438 (6th Cir. 2012) (deadly force reasonable when suspect poses serious threat)