Supreme Court Asked to Consider Relevance of Victim’s View in Qualified Immunity Analysis
This case law update was written by James P. Garay Heelan, an attorney at the law firm of Shaw Bransford & Roth, where he has practiced federal personnel and employment law since 2012. Mr. Heelan represents federal personnel across the Executive Branch, including career senior executives, law enforcement officers, foreign service officers, intelligence officers, and agencies in matters of federal personnel and employment law.
The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to consider whether the qualified immunity analysis in a personal liability lawsuit against a law enforcement officer who shot and killed a person considers the shooting victim’s perspective—rather than only a reasonable officer’s perspective.
On April 29, 2018, Deputy Anthony Mumphard responded to a property dispute between Michael Knibbs and his neighbor in North Carolina. The Deputy arrived on site just before midnight, alone and in full police uniform. Seeing a light inside Knibbs’s home, he stepped onto the front porch. He announced “sheriff’s office” and knocked several times. Because no one answered, the Deputy walked to the neighboring home to speak with the neighbor and talk about the nature of the dispute with Knibbs.
While speaking with the neighbor, the Deputy saw Knibbs’s light go out. The Deputy then returned to Knibbs’s front porch. He twice announced “sheriff’s office,” and heard motion inside the home. The Deputy then heard someone (later identified as Knibbs) rack a shotgun behind a door. Hearing the shotgun rack, the Deputy loudly and forcefully announced multiple times either “drop it” or “put it down.”
Because no one responded to the instruction to disarm, Deputy Mumphard moved away from the door where he heard the shotgun. He held his service weapon in one hand, and a flashlight in the other. Moving down the porch, the Deputy passed a window and saw Knibbs holding a shotgun. The Deputy insists he saw Knibbs aim the weapon at him, though a plaintiff’s expert witness said Knibbs could have been holding the shotgun on his shoulder with the barrel pointed toward the ceiling. Either way, the Deputy observed Knibbs did not comply with his instruction to disarm.
The Deputy made what he argues was a “split-second to make a decision” and fired service weapon multiple times, fatally shooting Knibbs.
Knibbs’s estate sued Deputy Mumphard in a Section 1983 action, claiming the Deputy violated Knibbs’s Fourth Amendment rights. The Western District Court of North Carolina granted the Deputy’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds and dismissed the 1983 claims. The District Court held qualified immunity applied because the Deputy had probable cause to believe Knibbs presented an immediate and serious threat. Knibbs’s estate appealed the summary judgment decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
The Fourth Circuit reversed the District Court. The Court of Appeals reasoned that qualified immunity was not appropriate because there were two disputes of material fact. First, the parties disputed whether Knibbs aimed his weapon at the Deputy. Second, it was unclear whether the Deputy was “readily recognizable” as a law enforcement officer while on Knibbs’s porch. The Court of Appeals also faulted Knibbs for shooting Knibbs without first observing Knibbs make a “furtive movement.”
According to the Deputy’s petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Fourth Circuit’s rationale was flawed because its qualified immunity analysis focused on Knibbs’s intent, rather than on facts known to the Deputy. The petition argues the Fourth Circuit breaks away from six of its sister circuits who have held the qualified immunity test is objective—considering what a reasonable officer would do considering the information known to him. Those other circuit courts do not consider the shooting victim’s perspective to decide whether a reasonable officer faced with the same facts would have used deadly force. The six sister circuits also do not require officers to wait for a “furtive movement” before using deadly force.
Deputy Mumphard’s petition asks the Supreme Court to decide which qualified immunity analysis for deadline force cases is correct, the Fourth Circuit’s test or the test used by the six other circuits who have addressed the issue.
After the Supreme Court first circulated the Deputy’s petition in August, it asked Knibbs’s estate to file a response. The Court receive the response in early September and the Deputy filed a reply. Last week the Court again circulated the Deputy’s petition.
If at least four of the nine justices vote to grant the Deputy’s petition, the Court will order the parties to fully brief and argue the issues. The Court will then decide the case this term.
Read the full petition to the Supreme Court here: Momphard v. Knibbs.
For over thirty years, Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C. has provided superior representation on a wide range of federal employment law issues, from representing federal employees nationwide in administrative investigations, disciplinary and performance actions, and Bivens lawsuits, to handling security clearance adjudications and employment discrimination cases.