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.
In the Camden case, a trial judge afforded qualified immunity to the officer, Rafael Martinez, and granted summary judgment in his favor. The Appellate Division reversed, in a split ruling.
At the Supreme Court, Justice Barry Albin's majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and Justices Jaynee LaVecchia and Walter Timpone.
Justice Lee Solomon issued a dissent, joined by Justices Anne Patterson and Faustino Fernandez-Vina.
Bryheim Baskin was shot after he crashed his car into an unmarked police vehicle and fled the scene on foot, armed with a handgun. Martinez gave chase and eventually cornered Baskin in a walled-in backyard, shooting him in the abdomen.
Martinez asserted that when he caught up with Baskin, he turned toward the officer and pointed an object that looked like a gun. Fearing for his life, Martinez said he fired his weapon. Although no gun was found where Baskin fell, two cellphones were located nearby.
Albin said at the summary judgment stage, when deciding whether qualified immunity applies, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to Baskin. Therefore, the court must accept as true the testimony of Baskin and the independent witness.
"Under that scenario, a police officer would not have had an objectively reasonable basis to use deadly force. The law prohibiting the use of deadly force against a non-threatening and surrendering suspect was clearly established, as evidenced by cases in jurisdictions that have addressed the issue. Thus, Detective Martinez was not entitled to qualified immunity on summary judgment," Albin wrote.
Albin said the conflicting accounts of what occurred at the time of the shooting must be submitted to a jury for resolution.
"After the jury makes its ultimate findings, the trial court can determine the merits of the application for qualified immunity," Albin wrote.
But Solomon said that, even if Baskin's account of the events is accepted as true for purposes of summary judgment, Martinez reasonably believed that he confronted an armed and dangerous suspect who posed an immediate threat to his life when he shot Baskin. Before he was apprehended, Baskin threatened the lives of police officers and the general public by speeding away from a police vehicle and crashing in to another, then, armed with a gun, leading police on a foot chase though a residential neighborhood in the middle of the afternoon.
"Baskin thus openly … exhibited a total willingness to commit dangerous acts against police officers and displayed an apparent disregard for innocent bystanders," Solomon wrote. "Additionally, Baskin posed an immediate threat because he was in possession of a handgun while actively resisting arrest. Those facts reasonably led Martinez to conclude that Baskin, who had committed serious crimes involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm—crashing into a police vehicle in an attempt to escape—was dangerous and willing to use deadly force against the officer and others."
The city attorney's office declined to comment on the ruling. Paul Melletz, who represented Baskin, could not be reached.
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 AllNJ Attorney General's Office Announces Major Shake-Up for Executive Leadership Team
4 minute read'Bewitched by the Technology': $300K to Settle Faulty Facial Recognition
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
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