Opinion ID: 4563546
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Officers’ Last Shots

Text: Even if it was reasonable for the Officers to open fire, however, that does not automatically clear the entire encounter of the Constitution’s prohibition against excessive use of force. We have analyzed similar claims in segments and found some parts of police officers’ actions to be -9- No. 19-4048, Adrienne Hood v. City of Columbus, OH, et al. reasonable and other parts to be unreasonable. See, e.g., Russo v. City of Cincinnati, 953 F.2d 1036, 1044–45 (6th Cir. 1992) (analyzing separately three distinct excessive force claims raised by the plaintiffs even though they were part of one incident); Pleasant v. Zamieski, 895 F.2d 272, 276 (6th Cir. 1990) (analyzing whether the officer’s actions in arresting a suspect were objectively reasonable in two components: the officer’s decision to (1) draw his gun and (2) not to return the gun to its holster). In Bouggess v. Mattingly, 482 F.3d 886, 890 (6th Cir. 2007), we reiterated that “[i]t is crucial for the purposes of this inquiry to separate [the officer’s] decision-points and determine whether each of his particular decisions was reasonable.” Hood alleged that the Officers continued to shoot at Green even after he no longer held a gun and was falling or already down on the ground. The district court dismissed this argument and declined to adopt a segmented analysis because it viewed all the shots as a single incident. Citing Stevens-Rucker v. City of Columbus, the court found that the Officers’ shots were not separated by “such a significant gap in time that they must be viewed as distinct incidents requiring individualized analysis.” 739 F. App’x 834, 844 (6th Cir. 2018). In Stevens-Rucker, the court found that all the officer’s shots were part of a single incident because the last shots were fired “within a second or even fractions of a second” and there “was not enough time for [the officer] to stop and reassess the threat level between the shots.” Id. While all the shots fired were in quick succession here, Rosen himself remembered a momentary lapse when Green disappeared from his view. And Rutledge’s observation that the Officers walked over to Green and took more shots while Green was on the ground shows a segment of the event separate from the initial shots. Alfred, who was by his car on Ontario Street, also said that the Officers continued to shoot at Green even as he was falling to the ground, and then they each took two or three more shots when -10- No. 19-4048, Adrienne Hood v. City of Columbus, OH, et al. Green was on the ground. It appears that there were gaps between the Officers’ shots, and they had time to reassess Green’s threat. Applying a segmented approach to this situation, the question is whether “the officers’ initial decision to shoot was reasonable but there was no need to continue shooting.” Dickerson v. McClellan, 101 F.3d 1151, 1162 n.9 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing Ellis v. Wynalda, 999 F.2d 243, 247 (7th Cir. 1993) (“When an officer faces a situation in which he could justifiably shoot, he does not retain the right to shoot at any time thereafter with impunity.”)) “We have held repeatedly that the use of force after a suspect has been incapacitated or neutralized is excessive as a matter of law.” Baker v. City of Hamilton, 471 F.3d 601, 607 (6th Cir. 2006). In Russo v. Cincinnati, for example, we held that a reasonable jury could find that the officers violated the suspect’s constitutional rights with the use of deadly force when they repeatedly shot at the suspect, even after he dropped his weapon and posed no serious threat of physical harm. 953 F.2d at 1045. In Margeson v. White Cty., Tenn., police officers entered the suspect James Margeson’s residence, who grabbed his gun and pointed it at the officers. 579 F. App’x 466, 468 (6th Cir. 2014). Multiple officers shot at Margeson, and he suffered 21 separate gunshot wounds. Id. We held that while any objectively reasonable officer would respond with deadly force in the first instance, the officers there were not entitled to qualified immunity on summary judgment because the record suggested that “at least twelve additional shots were fired at Mr. Margeson after he had fallen to the ground with multiple gunshot wounds,” and that “a jury could reasonably infer that Mr. Margeson became incapacitated, and was therefore unable to pose a threat after having been shot with the first few bullets.” Id. at 472. Both Rosen and Bare said they stopped shooting when Green fell to the ground. In cases involving the use of deadly force, the deceased suspect is unable to tell what occurred, and “[a] -11- No. 19-4048, Adrienne Hood v. City of Columbus, OH, et al. court may not simply accept what may be a self-serving account by the police officer. It must look at the circumstantial evidence that, if believed, would tend to discredit the police officer’s story.” Jefferson v. Lewis, 594 F.3d 454, 462 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Scott v. Henrich, 39 F.3d 912, 915 (9th Cir. 1994)). Several witnesses discredit the Officers’ claim. Rutledge stated that the Officers “were walking up on [Green’s] body,” which was “flat on the ground,” and shot him twice. Rutledge added that the Officers were “basically checking like he don’t move or nothing like that. . . . [H]e was already flat, so I don’t see why the actual two gunshots was necessary.” Alfred, from his vantage point down the block, stated that shots continued after Green had dropped his gun, “As he’s going down, like his gun done flew out his hand, . . . shots are still being [fired]. No. They still going. Then they stop.” Jordan, who was outside his home right at the intersection, said the police stopped shooting Green when he was flat on his back, but likely fired a shot while he was down on one knee, in the process of falling down. The experts from both parties indicated that some of Green’s gunshot wounds were sustained while he was in a “lowered” position, likely when he was down on the ground or in the process of going down. Considering the totality of the circumstances as explained by the multiple witnesses, including expert witnesses, the encounter between the Officers and Green is similar to the circumstances in Russo and Margeson, where the police continued to shoot even after the suspects were incapacitated, on the ground, and no longer safety threats. Genuine issues of material fact exist as to when the Officers stopped shooting at Green. This dispute is material to whether the Officers continued to shoot at Green after he was no longer a physical threat, in violation of Green’s constitutional rights. Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Hood, the nonmoving -12- No. 19-4048, Adrienne Hood v. City of Columbus, OH, et al. party, a jury could reasonably conclude that the Officers’ use of force in this context was unreasonable.