CA11: Not clearly established warning required before use of deadly force

It was not well established that police need to warn armed people before shooting them. Here, the shooting victim was an innocent homeowner who had a gun on him around his own house investigating a prowler, and the police saw him and shot him. Powell v. Snook, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 3539 (11th Cir. Feb. 8, 2022)*:

Lawsuits involving claims that officers used deadly force in violation of the Fourth Amendment often involve tragic circumstances. This one does. Just after midnight one evening in June of 2016, Henry County, Georgia, police sergeant Patrick Snook — who was at the wrong house because of imprecise dispatch directions — shot and killed William David Powell, who was innocent of any crime and standing in his driveway. He was holding a pistol because he and his wife thought they had heard a prowler.

Sharon Powell, David’s wife, brought a § 1983 claim against Snook in his individual capacity, alleging that he violated her husband’s constitutional right to be free from excessive force. The district court granted Snook’s motion for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity. This is Powell’s appeal.

The qualified immunity issue before us is the familiar one of whether clearly established law put Snook on notice that firing the shots he did violated David Powell’s constitutional rights. More specifically, was it clearly established that under the circumstances of this case the Constitution required Snook to warn David Powell before shooting him?

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Excessive force, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.