2nd Circuit Rejects Qualified Immunity in Lawsuit Over Police Shooting of Mentally Ill Man
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled Monday that former officers from the White Plains Police Department were not entitled to qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss civil claims stemming from the 2011 killing of an elderly, mentally ill black man alone in his city-owned apartment.
June 01, 2020 at 06:33 PM
6 minute read
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled Monday that former officers from the White Plains Police Department were not entitled to qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss civil claims stemming from the 2011 killing of an elderly and mentally ill black man alone in his city-owned apartment.
The ruling, from a panel of the federal appeals court, revived claims by the family of Kenneth Chamberlain Sr., 68, a U.S. Marine Corps veteran who was fatally shot by police in White Plains after he accidentally activated his emergency medical-alert system.
The panel rejected the district court judge's ruling that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, which shields government officials from being sued for actions performed in their official capacity absent violations of a "clearly established" federal law or constitutional rights.
The Second Circuit ruled that Chamberlain's estate had established that the complaint established a plausible claim that the officer's decision to enter Chamberlain's apartment in full tactical gear without a warrant was an "unlawful entry" that violated his constitutional protections against illegal searches and seizures.
"Since the officers' qualified immunity defense is not clearly established by allegations in the Amended Complaint as augmented by the relevant recordings … the district court erred in applying it in the context of the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss," Judges Robert D. Sack and Peter W. Hall wrote in the decision.
According to court documents, Chamberlain accidentally activated his his Life Aid medical button early in the morning of Nov. 19, 2011. After being unable to contact Chamberlain, the Life Aid operator alerted city officials, who dispatched an ambulance and police squad car to the apartment.
Despite the dispatcher's warnings that Chamberlain suffered from mental illness, the responding officers began banging loudly on his door and shouting demands that they be allowed to enter. The noise, Monday's opinion said, startled Chamberlain, who then activated his Life Aid button to report "an emergency" that "the White Plains Police Department [is] banging on my door and I did not call them and I am not sick."
According to the opinion, Chamberlain said he had not called the police, and repeatedly told the officers that he did not need assistance. The communications and events were captured via police video and audio recordings from Life Aid.
Officers responded in tactical gear, with handguns, a beanbag shotgun, Taser, riot shield and pepper spray, causing him to become increasingly agitated and afraid that the police were there to kill him. Suffering from "hallucinations and flashbacks to his time of military service," Chamberlain brandished a knife through a crack in his door, telling the officers that he needed to protect himself.
After an hour of responding to the scene, the officers removed the hinges to Chamberlain's apartment door, tased him, fired beanbags and then fatally shot him twice.
U.S. District Judge Cathy Seibel of the Southern District of New York in December 2013 ruled that under the "emergency aid doctrine," the officers acted reasonably in entering the apartment because he could have posed a threat to himself or others that could have been with him.
Even if the warrantless entry was not justified, Seibel said, the responding officers were entitled to qualified immunity because it "would not be unreasonable for an objective officer to conclude that there was a risk that an occupant of the apartment needed police or medical assistance that justified the officers' entry into the apartment."
The Second Circuit, however, disagreed with Seibel's reasoning on appeal.
The panel said that the officer's escalated the situation while outside his door and with their use of force as they made their way inside. It was clear, the judges said, that the officers were aware of Chamberlain's history of mental illness, and that a "reasonable officer" should have known that their actions were exacerbating the situation.
"These facts as alleged in the complaint and related documents, and viewed in the light most favorable to appellant, give rise to the plausible inference that the officers knew that Chamberlain was not in need of urgent medical assistance but chose to enter his home anyway," the Sack and Hall wrote.
"We conclude that a reasonable, experienced officer would not have determined there was probable cause to believe that Chamberlain needed urgent medical attention," the judges said.
The panel also noted that a qualified immunity defense faces a "high bar" on a motion to dismiss because of procedural conflicts and said that it could be raised again as the litigation proceeds.
"And it may well be that the defendant police officers in this case are ultimately entitled to immunity, indeed, at the 'earliest possible stage in litigation,'" they said. "But today is not that day."
Debra Cohen, who represents Chamberlain's family, said in a statement that "we are ready to proceed to trial and hold these officers accountable for their unlawful actions."
Contacted by phone Monday, Cohen, a professor at Pace University's Elisabeth Haub School of Law and co-chair of the Civil Rights Practice Group of Newman Ferrara, said the decision meant that "we are hopefully beginning to see some correction in the overly broad application of qualified immunity to the actions of police officers."
"It's for a jury to decide the reasonableness of their actions," she said.
An attorney for the former officers did not respond Monday to a request for comment.
The Chamberlain family is represented by Cohen, Randolph McLaughlin and Danielle Sullivan of Newman Ferrara in Manhattan.
The former officers are represented by Lalit Loomba, John M. Flannery and Peter A. Meisels of Wilson Elser in White Plains.
The case is captioned Chamberlain v. White Plains.
READ MORE:
ALM
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRetired Judge Susan Cacace Elected Westchester DA in Win for Democrats
In Eric Adams Case and Other Corruption Matters, Prosecutors Seem Bent on Pushing Boundaries of Their Already Awesome Power
5 minute readEric Adams Trial Set for April as Defense Urges Dismissal of Bribery Count
Major Drug Companies Agree to Pay $49.1 Million to 50 States, Territories
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-59
- 2The American Lawyer Names Industry Award Winners
- 3Regulatory Upheaval Is Coming. How Businesses Prepare and Respond Will Separate Winners and Losers
- 4Cravath Elevates 7 to Partnership, Up From Last Year
- 5Kline & Specter Hit With Lawsuit From Another Former Associate
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250