In 4-3 Ruling, Justices Withhold Qualified Immunity for Officer Who Shot Suspect
Conflicting accounts of what occurred at the time of the shooting must be submitted to a jury for resolution, and then a trial court can determine the merits of the application for qualified immunity, the court said.
July 09, 2020 at 12:43 PM
4 minute read
The New Jersey Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, ruled that a Camden police officer who shot a man who claimed he was surrendering is not entitled to qualified immunity from an excessive-force lawsuit.
The court said that the officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on summary judgment because the suspect and an independent witness each gave sworn testimony that his hands were empty and raised over his head when the officer shot him. The dissenting justices said that, under the totality of the circumstances, the officer's belief that deadly force was warranted was a reasonable one. Although the suspect discarded the handgun he was carrying while being chased by police, the officer did not see him drop the gun and had no reason to know that the suspect was no longer carrying a weapon.
The case that divided both the Supreme Court and an Appellate Division panel comes as the Black Lives Matter movement has focused attention on the impact of qualified immunity in police excessive-force cases. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has suggested that the high court revisit the doctrine of sovereign immunity, and states have been reexamining their laws on the subject.
This content has been archived.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.
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: For Big Law Names, Shorter is Sweeter
- 2Wine, Dine and Grind (Through the Weekend): Summer Associates Thirst For Experience in 'Real Matters'
- 3The 'Biden Effect' on Senior Attorneys: Should I Stay or Should I Go?
- 4BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 5First Lawsuit Filed Alleging Contraceptive Depo-Provera Caused Brain Tumor
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