Sherika Franklin v. Jason Popovich
111 F.4th 1188
11th Cir.2024Background
- Police attempted to arrest Christopher Redding, a "Violent Felony Offender of Special Concern," based on a parole violation related to robbery.
- During the attempted arrest, Redding engaged in a shootout with officers, injuring one, then fled while dropping his weapon at some point (which officers did not see).
- After being shot several times by police, Redding was lying on the ground, bloody and moving; officers delayed cuffing him for lack of protective gear, standing on his arms while awaiting gloves.
- When Redding made a sudden movement, one officer (Popovich) shot him twice in the back of the head, killing him, believing Redding was reaching for a weapon.
- Redding’s representative (Franklin) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force; the district court granted summary judgment to Popovich on qualified immunity grounds, finding no clearly established law was violated, and Franklin appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether use of deadly force violated Fourth Amendment rights | Popovich used excessive, unreasonable force on an unarmed, wounded, non-threatening suspect | Popovich reasonably believed Redding was armed and a danger, given prior shootout and ambiguous movements | Court found no Fourth Amendment violation since reasonable officer could believe Redding armed and dangerous |
| Whether Popovich was entitled to qualified immunity | Popovich’s actions violated clearly established law, with plaintiff asserting similar cases prohibited deadly force under these facts | There was no clearly established law prohibiting Popovich's actions under these circumstances | Court held Popovich was entitled to qualified immunity; no clearly established violation shown |
| Existence of material factual dispute on Popovich’s perception | Popovich must have known Redding was unarmed since gun had been dropped, and other officers saw this | Popovich did not see Redding drop the gun and did not know whether he was unarmed; no evidence dispute | Court found no genuine factual dispute regarding Popovich's knowledge; summary judgment appropriate |
| Applicability of prior precedent (Perez v. Suszczynski) | Plaintiff argued Perez established clear unlawfulness in using deadly force on a compliant, unarmed suspect | Defendant distinguished Perez as factually inapplicable since Redding was not compliant/nonresistant | Court agreed Perez and other cases were inapposite; suspect was actively resisting here |
Key Cases Cited
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force may be used if officer has probable cause to believe suspect poses a threat of serious harm)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective reasonableness of force determined by severity of crime, threat posed, and resistance/flight)
- Powell v. Snook, 25 F.4th 912 (11th Cir. 2022) (qualified immunity attorney standard in excessive force cases in the 11th Circuit)
- Harris-Billups ex rel. Harris v. Anderson, 61 F.4th 1298 (11th Cir. 2023) (officer's belief about suspect’s threat and weapon must be reasonable)
- Perez v. Suszczynski, 809 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2016) (distinguished; disarmed, compliant suspects protected by Fourth Amendment but not analogous here)