77 F.4th 441
6th Cir.2023Background
- On January 2, 2019, after a courthouse warrant alert and an earlier altercation with a probation officer, James Burroughs drove toward his apartment; Niles officers responded.
- Officers Reppy, Hogan, Adkins, and Mannella confronted Burroughs; Hogan and Reppy had their cruisers positioned near Burroughs’ vehicle; Mannella approached on foot.
- Reppy’s body camera was on and captured most of the encounter; Hogan and Mannella failed to activate their body cameras as required.
- Mannella yelled commands, then fired three rounds through the windshield, killing Burroughs; Reppy fired five additional shots that did not hit Burroughs.
- The district court, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Raimey (Burroughs’s estate), found genuine disputes of material fact but determined a jury could find Burroughs was braking or nearly stationary, was complying with commands, and Mannella was to the side of the vehicle when he shot; it denied Mannella qualified immunity and state-law immunity but granted summary judgment to other defendants.
- Mannella appealed the denial of qualified immunity; the Sixth Circuit reviewed legal issues based on the district court’s facts and affirmed denial of qualified immunity and denial of Ohio statutory immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Raimey’s Argument | Mannella’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mannella is entitled to qualified immunity for using deadly force (Fourth Amendment excessive force) | Burroughs posed no imminent threat; he was slowing/braking and complying, and Mannella was not in the vehicle’s path; deadly force was unreasonable | Mannella perceived an accelerating car that could strike and kill officers, was in the vehicle’s path, and acted on split-second judgment | Denied qualified immunity: viewing district-court facts favorably to Raimey, a reasonable officer would not have believed an imminent threat existed; use of deadly force violated the Fourth Amendment |
| Whether established precedent put a reasonable officer on notice that shooting a non-dangerous fleeing suspect is unlawful | Precedent (Garner, Graham, Cupp, Kirby, Sigley) clearly prohibits shooting a non-dangerous fleeing suspect | Claimed facts justified force; argued split-second perception of danger | Held clearly established: Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit precedent gave fair warning that shooting a non-dangerous fleeing suspect is unconstitutional; qualified immunity denied |
| Whether Ohio statutory immunity shields Mannella from state tort claims (wrongful death, assault & battery, reckless conduct) | Actions amounted to at least reckless conduct (conscious disregard for known risk), so immunity does not apply | Argued actions were within scope and not taken with malicious purpose or recklessness | Denied immunity: the same facts defeating qualified immunity support a finding of reckless conduct under Ohio law, so state immunity unavailable |
| Whether this Court has jurisdiction over Mannella’s interlocutory appeal given disputed facts | Raimey moved to dismiss, arguing Mannella raised factual disputes that defeat appellate jurisdiction | Mannella presented fact disputes but appealed legal questions embedded in the denial of immunity | Court retained jurisdiction to decide the legal aspects (applying district-court facts in plaintiff’s favor) and denied the motion to dismiss |
Key Cases Cited
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force permissible only if suspect poses immediate threat to officer or others)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (use-of-force standard is objective reasonableness under Fourth Amendment)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (video evidence can preclude a plaintiff’s version of events that no reasonable jury could believe)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity two-step and discretion which prong to address)
- Kirby v. Duva, 530 F.3d 475 (6th Cir. 2008) (denial of qualified immunity where evidence showed car posed no threat when officers fired)
- Smith v. Cupp, 430 F.3d 766 (6th Cir. 2005) (officer not justified in shooting when car had passed officer and posed no threat)
- Latits v. Phillips, 878 F.3d 541 (6th Cir. 2017) (deadly force against fleeing vehicle requires reason to believe car presented imminent danger)
- Sigley v. City of Parma Heights, 437 F.3d 527 (6th Cir. 2006) (shooting driver of fleeing vehicle unreasonable where intent to harm unclear)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity shields officials unless they violated clearly established rights)