Opinion ID: 6318081
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reason for Police Response

Text: When officers respond to an ongoing crime, or set out to arrest a suspect, they may have some reason to fear for their safety or the safety of others based on the nature of the crime. See Graham, 490 U.S. at 396 (courts must consider “the severity of the crime at issue”). But Johns was not responding to a past or ongoing crime. When officers are called for wellness checks or other non-criminal calls, this Court looks at what the officer learned and observed about the situation before the officer even engaged with anyone on the scene. Compare Woodcock v. City of Bowling Green, 679 F. App’x 419, 423 (6th Cir. 2017) (factor did not support use of lethal force when nobody accused the person of threatening or violent behavior before police arrived), with Simmonds, 682 F.3d at 444–446 (factor supported use of lethal force when officers responded to call about a drunk and possibly suicidal man who was threatening to kill his exgirlfriend’s family and officers knew the man owned guns). Although Johns seemingly believed that he was walking into a volatile situation—indeed he unholstered his gun even before arriving on the scene—this subjective belief was not factually supported. Johns responded to a call about an unwanted person on the Palma property who had gotten into a fight with his sister over the TV remote.2 Johns was not responding to a crime. Before arriving, Johns saw Palma’s driver’s license and knew that Palma was the unwanted person. When he arrived, Johns saw Palma standing outside of the house by himself. Even if Johns believed that removing an unwanted person may involve some inherent danger, the unwanted person—Palma—was already isolated and away from the home. Thus, the facts do not support Johns’ belief that he was walking into a high-risk situation. This factor therefore cuts against Johns’ argument that Palma posed an imminent threat of serious physical harm. See Woodcock, 679 F. App’x at 423. 2 While Defendants describe Palma’s prior mental health hospitalizations and run-ins with police, none of these facts were known to Johns and are thus irrelevant here. See Simmonds, 682 F.3d at 445. No. 21-3315 Palma, et al. v. Johns, et al. Page 16