Opinion ID: 6318081
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Presence of a Weapon

Text: “[A]n officer need not face the business end of a gun to use deadly force.” Jacobs, 915 F.3d at 1040 (citing Thomas, 854 F.3d at 366). The stronger the evidence showing that a person is armed, the more likely the use of lethal force is reasonable. See Bouggess, 482 F.3d at 891 n.5 (citing Dickerson, 101 F.3d at 1051–62). When the evidence is weak, this factor cannot justify the use of lethal force. See id. On the one hand, officers are often justified in shooting a person who is visibly armed and aiming at officers. See DeMerrell v. City of Cheboygan, 206 F. App’x 418, 429 (6th Cir. 2006). However, even if a person is visibly armed, lethal force may still be unreasonable. E.g., Thomas, 854 F.3d at 366 (“To be clear, we do not hold that an officer may shoot a suspect merely because he has a gun in his hand.”). Although an officer may reasonably believe that a person was armed even if it turns out that the person was, in fact, unarmed, the officer’s belief must have been reasonable based on the circumstances. See id. at 365. For example, in Simmonds, 682 F.3d at 445, we found that officers reasonably used lethal force when responding to a 9-1-1 call about a man threatening to kill his family because, even though the man was, in fact, unarmed, the caller said that the man owned guns, the man threatened officers saying “I have a gun,” and the man brandished a “silver object” that he pointed at officers. Nobody told Johns that Palma was armed. Melissa allegedly told Johns that Palma was unarmed—though the record does not indicate whether she said this before or after the shooting. Dispatch did not tell Johns that Palma might be armed or was threatening to use a weapon, even though dispatch otherwise gave Johns several details about the scene at the Palma house—a sibling dispute over a TV remote control and a mentally ill person on the premises. While these facts do not require the conclusion that Johns knew Palma was unarmed, a jury could reasonably infer that, had there been any reason to believe Palma was armed at the time, the 9-1-1 caller would have disclosed this fact and that dispatch would have shared this information. Once on the scene, Johns admits that he never saw Palma holding any object, let alone a firearm or other weapon. As it turned out, Palma was unarmed. But Johns may not have known this, and, at the time, Johns was “concerned” that he could not see Palma’s hands. (Johns Dep., R. 50-1, Page ID #744.) Our decision in Woodcock is instructive here. 679 F. App’x 419. No. 21-3315 Palma, et al. v. Johns, et al. Page 17 In that case, the officers responded to the scene after a man, Harrison, called 9-1-1 and said that he wanted to kill his brother. Id. at 420. The officers found Harrison standing on a railroad track with his left hand reaching into the rear waistband of his pants. Id. at 421. Officers repeatedly told Harrison to show his hands, but he did not acknowledge or comply with the order. Id. After warning Harrison that they would shoot, Harrison still refused to comply, and officers shot him. Id. We found that this disobedience and suspicious hand placement did not give the officers probable cause to believe that Harrison posed an imminent threat because, while the officers “may have thought that Harrison had a gun, . . . Harrison never gave [the officers] reason to think that he would use it imminently.” Id. at 424–25. Like the officers in Woodcock, Johns’ only reason to suspect that Palma may have been armed was that he had his hands in his pockets and refused to show them. The fact that Johns could not see Palma’s hands would not lead a reasonable officer to believe he was in imminent danger. See id. As we explained in Woodcock, even if the person’s hands are not visible—and even if he appears to be suspiciously reaching for something in his clothing—these facts would not lead a reasonable officer to believe that the person posed an immediate threat of serious harm. Id.; see also Graves v. Malone, 810 F. App’x 414, 417, 422– 23 (6th Cir. 2020) (unreasonable to shoot man who initially refused to show his hands even after he suddenly raised his fist while holding a small black object); Bouggess, 482 F.3d at 891 n.5 (officer’s “mere hunch that [the person] had a firearm cannot be enough to meet his burden” (citing Dickerson, 101 F.3d at 1051–62)). There are equally plausible, but far more innocent explanations for Palma’s behavior. For one, it was early February in northern Ohio; as Johns admits, “[i]t was cold.” (Johns Dep., R. 50-1, Page ID #738.) Moreover, Johns saw at least one of Palma’s hands when Palma pulled out the taser probes, well before Johns decided to shoot. Johns did not see a weapon or any other object in Palma’s hand. Thus, this factor does not support Johns’ qualified immunity defense.