Opinion ID: 2924322
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Use of Force Policy

Text: The Estate also challenges later rulings by the district court during the trial of the remaining defendant, the sniper Charles Jetter. The Estate argues that it should have been permitted to argue that Jetter’s fatal shot violated a departmental “Use of Force Policy”4 in support of its broader argument that Jetter’s shot was objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. That Policy states in relevant part: “Before using lethal force, police officers shall identify themselves and state their intent to use lethal force, where feasible.” The Estate argues that this made it unreasonable for Jetter to shoot without first warning Carlson and that the jury should have been so informed. The Estate interprets the Policy as requiring Jetter to issue a verbal warning before firing, thus disregarding the “where feasible” language, Jetter’s role as a sniper, and his claim of danger to the other officer. In the language of the Policy it was not “feasible” for a camouflaged sniper to identify himself and shout a warning when a suspect is preparing to fire on another officer. Moreover, the policy does not set the constitutional standard required by the Fourth Amendment, so it was not improper for the district court to limit the Estate’s use of that document at trial. Although the Policy was already in evidence, the district court would not allow the Estate to use it to cross examine Jetter’s expert to establish “what is objectively reasonable when it 4 The Use of Force Policy is an internal policy document that the Northern Michigan Mutual Aid Task Force—the multi-jurisdictional organization behind the Emergency Response Team involved in this operation—uses to “provide police officers with guidelines on the use of lethal and less [than] lethal force.” Northern Michigan Mutual Aid Task Force Policy on Use of Force, 1. It presents the following “[p]arameters for the use of lethal force”: 1. Police officers are authorized to use lethal force in order to; a. Protect the police officer or others from immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm; or, b. Prevent the escape of a fleeing felon whom the officer has probable cause to believe will pose a significant threat to human life should escape occur. 2. Before using lethal force, police officers shall identify themselves and state their intent to use lethal force, where feasible. 3. In high risk incidents such as barricaded gunmen or hostage takers, circumstances may dictate the use of lethal force to resolve the incident. a. The order to use lethal force will be given directly from the agency head of the requesting jurisdiction to the [Team] Commander. b. The Team Leader will relay the order directly to the element that will execute the order (Sniper, Entry Team). c. In the event the agency head is not available, the order will be given by the Command Officer designated as the acting agency head. d. The Team Leader will authenticate the origin of the order visually or verbally. Id. at 2. No. 13-2643 Carlson v. Fewins, et al. Page 13 comes to a claim under the Fourth Amendment.” Trial Tr. 1746. The district court explained further: “The law is clear that the policy doesn’t set forth the [constitutional] standard, that’s why you need an expert witness, which I guess you are not going to call, I guess. You can’t use a policy to create a [constitutional] standard.” Id. The district court was correct. See Smith v. Freeland, 954 F.2d 343, 347-48 (6th Cir. 1992) (“A city can certainly choose to hold its officers to a higher standard than that required by the Constitution without being subjected to increased liability under § 1983. To hold that cities with strict policies commit more constitutional violations than those with lax policies would be an unwarranted extension of the law, as well as a violation of common sense.”). We affirm that ruling.