Stamps Ex Rel. Estate of Stamps v. Town of Framingham, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 2026

Background

SWAT raid (Jan. 5, 2011) at a Framingham apartment executed on a warrant targeting known drug dealers; Eurie Stamps, Sr., a 68-year-old resident with no violent history, was present and not suspected of wrongdoing.
Officers announced and breached; Duncan, a SWAT officer, switched his loaded M-4 from "safe" to "semi-automatic," moved to cover Stamps, and pointed the rifle at Stamps's head while Stamps lay prone and compliant.
According to the plaintiffs’ accepted version, Duncan had the safety off, placed his finger on the trigger, and unintentionally discharged the rifle, fatally wounding Stamps.
Plaintiffs introduced expert testimony that Duncan violated Framingham policy and basic firearm safety (finger off trigger, weapon on safe unless threat perceived, muzzle in safe direction). Duncan was later removed from the SWAT team.
Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourth Amendment excessive force; district court denied qualified immunity summary judgment; First Circuit affirmed the denial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the Fourth Amendment cover an accidental shooting that results from intentional police conduct in effecting a seizure?	Fourth Amendment applies where officer’s intentional actions created an unreasonable risk that accidentally caused harm.	An unintentional discharge is not a "means intentionally applied" and therefore falls outside Fourth Amendment seizure analysis.	Court: Fourth Amendment applies; Brower controls—unintended harm from intentionally created dangerous conditions is reviewable.
Were Duncan’s actions objectively unreasonable/excessive force?	Pointing a loaded rifle at the head of a compliant, nonthreatening person with safety off and finger on trigger was unreasonable.	Actions were not unreasonable given perceived threat; shooting was accidental.	Court: A jury could find Duncan’s conduct objectively unreasonable under plaintiffs’ version of facts.
Was the Fourth Amendment right clearly established such that a reasonable officer would know Duncan’s conduct was unlawful?	Preexisting caselaw and police training made it clear pointing firearms at compliant, nonthreatening persons is unlawful.	Law was not clearly established in the particular context; qualified immunity applies.	Court: Law was clearly established by prior precedent (e.g., Mlodzinski and other circuits); qualified immunity denied.
Is summary judgment on qualified immunity appropriate at interlocutory stage?	Plaintiffs: disputed facts require jury resolution; defendants not entitled to immunity as a matter of law.	Defendants: entitlement to qualified immunity should be decided as a matter of law now.	Court: Denied defendants’ interlocutory qualified immunity appeal; case proceeds to trial.

Key Cases Cited

Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (1979) (seizure occurs when government intentionally sets in motion an instrumentality that terminates freedom of movement; unintended lethal results do not evade Fourth Amendment review)
Mlodzinski v. Lewis, 648 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2011) (pointing an assault rifle at an innocent, nonthreatening person during a raid can be unreasonable; denial of qualified immunity affirmed)
Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (2015) (qualified immunity inquiry requires careful, fact-specific assessment; courts must identify whether the violative nature of particular conduct was clearly established)
Landol–Rivera v. Cruz Cosme, 906 F.2d 791 (1st Cir. 1990) (unintentional conduct can give rise to Fourth Amendment liability in certain circumstances; intent to seize the victim matters)
Henry v. Purnell, 652 F.3d 524 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (objective reasonableness governs even when the officer’s conduct was mistaken; accidental results do not automatically defeat Fourth Amendment claims)
Espinosa v. City & County of San Francisco, 598 F.3d 528 (9th Cir. 2010) (denying qualified immunity where officers pointed loaded guns at a suspect given low level of threat)