Court Opinion

ID: 9961592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-19 14:02:45.512098+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:21:11.857506
License: Public Domain

Rel: April 19, 2024

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern
Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts,
300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other
errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.

         SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
                             OCTOBER TERM, 2023-2024
                              _________________________

                                      SC-2023-0735
                                _________________________

    Ex parte City of Montgomery, Kenneth F. Davis, Joseph D.
                   Favor, and Michael T. Shirah

                      PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

     (In re: Frank Knighton, as administrator and personal
 representative of the Estate of Holly Rene Knighton, deceased

                                                  v.

   City of Montgomery, Kenneth F. Davis, Joseph D. Favor, and
                       Michael T. Shirah)

                 (Montgomery Circuit Court: CV-20-900444)

STEWART, Justice.
SC-2023-0735

     The City of Montgomery ("the City"), Kenneth F. Davis, Joseph D.

Favor, and Michael T. Shirah have filed a petition requesting that this

court issue a writ of mandamus directing the Montgomery Circuit Court

("the trial court") to grant their motion for a summary judgment, which

was filed in the underlying action brought against them by Frank

Knighton, as administrator and personal representative of the estate of

Holly Rene Knighton, deceased, on the ground that they are entitled to

immunity. For the reasons explained below, we grant the petition.

                     Facts and Procedural History

     On March 27, 2018, Davis, Favor, and Shirah ("the detectives"),

each of whom at the time was employed as a detective by the City's Police

Department, responded to a call regarding an allegedly stolen vehicle at

a home on Kiwanis Street. When the detectives arrived at the location,

they approached the driveway with Shirah in front. According to Shirah,

he observed the allegedly stolen vehicle at the rear of the home. As the

detectives walked down the driveway, Shirah said, he noticed an

individual, later identified to be Holly Knighton ("Knighton"), running to

the back of the home and exiting the home. Shirah notified Knighton that

they were police officers and commanded her to stop. The detectives

                                    2
SC-2023-0735

quickly approached the vehicle, with Shirah in front with his weapon

drawn.

      After Knighton exited the home, she ran toward the vehicle and

entered it. Before she could close the door of the vehicle, Favor and Shirah

arrived at the vehicle and attempted to grab the door and pull it open

while Davis approached the passenger side of the vehicle. According to

Davis, he took a position near the passenger side of the vehicle to monitor

the surroundings because, he testified, a person of interest for automobile

thefts and methamphetamine sales lived next door. Favor and Shirah

commanded Knighton to exit the vehicle; however, Knighton shifted the

vehicle into reverse and accelerated. According to Favor, he heard a

"clicking noise" before he heard the vehicle's engine engage and Knighton

shift into reverse. Similarly, Davis stated that he heard a "clunk."

      When the vehicle accelerated in reverse, Favor and Shirah were

both knocked down, with Favor being knocked down near the tire on the

driver's side, in front of the vehicle. According to Shirah, the vehicle could

not have exited the driveway without hitting Favor again. However,

before Knighton could exit the driveway, Davis discharged his weapon,

striking her several times and ultimately killing her. Davis stated, in his

                                     3
SC-2023-0735

affidavit supporting the motion for a summary judgment, that he lost

sight of Favor and fired his weapon because, he said, "Favor was subject

to being seriously wounded or killed if the vehicle were placed in drive."

However, in his prior deposition, Davis testified that he had lost sight of

Favor and fired his weapon because "it appeared that [Favor] was being

run over by the vehicle."

     Frank Knighton, as the administrator and personal representative

of Knighton's estate ("the plaintiff"), sued the City and the detectives,

asserting wrongful-death claims against the detectives and seeking to

hold the City vicariously liable for the detectives' conduct. The detectives

and the City moved for a summary judgment based on peace-officer

immunity pursuant to § 6-5-338(a), Ala. Code 1975, and State-agent

immunity pursuant to Ex parte Cranman, 792 So. 2d 392 (Ala. 2000)

(plurality opinion), as modified in Hollis v. City of Brighton, 950 So. 2d

300 (Ala. 2006).1 The trial court denied the motion, and this petition

followed.

_________________________
     1Although Cranman was a plurality decision, the restatement of

law pertaining to State-agent immunity set forth in Cranman was
subsequently adopted by this Court in Ex parte Rizk, 791 So. 2d 911 (Ala.
2000), and Ex parte Butts, 775 So. 2d 173 (Ala. 2000). See also § 36-1-
12, Ala. Code 1975 (codifying the restatement originally set forth in
                                  4
SC-2023-0735

                           Standard of Review

             " ' "While the general rule is that the denial of a motion
     for summary judgment is not reviewable, the exception is that
     the denial of a motion for summary judgment grounded on a
     claim of immunity is reviewable by petition for writ of
     mandamus." ' Ex parte Nall, 879 So. 2d 541, 543 (Ala. 2003)
     (quoting Ex parte Rizk, 791 So. 2d 911, 912 (Ala. 2000))
     (emphasis omitted). A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary
     remedy available only when the petitioner can demonstrate
     ' "(1) a clear legal right to the order sought; (2) an imperative
     duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a
     refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and
     (4) the properly invoked jurisdiction of the court." ' Ex parte
     Nall, 879 So. 2d at 543 (quoting Ex parte BOC Grp., Inc., 823
     So. 2d 1270, 1272 (Ala. 2001)).

           "In reviewing the denial of a summary-judgment motion
     based on immunity, this Court must 'view the [materials] in
     the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, accord the
     nonmoving party all reasonable favorable inferences from the
     evidence, and resolve all reasonable doubts against the
     moving party, considering only the evidence before the trial
     court at the time it denied the motion.' Ex parte Wood, 852 So.
     2d 705, 708 (Ala. 2002) (citing Ex parte Rizk, 791 So. 2d at
     912).

           "Moreover, when reviewing by mandamus petition
     claims alleged to be subject to the defense of State-agent
     immunity, as set forth in Ex parte Cranman, 792 So. 2d 392
     (Ala. 2000) (plurality opinion), this Court 'first review[s] the
     facts surrounding the activities of the agent. If those facts
     support immunity and the burden therefore shifts to the
     claimant, we review any facts offered to establish an exception
_________________________
Cranman). In Hollis, this Court amended the restatement of State-agent
immunity to incorporate the peace-officer immunity provided in § 6-5-
338.
                                  5
SC-2023-0735

     to immunity as prescribed in Cranman to determine whether
     that exception is supported by substantial evidence.' Ex parte
     Utilities Bd. of Foley, 265 So. 3d 1273, 1281 (Ala. 2018) (citing
     Ex parte Price, 256 So. 3d 1184 (Ala. 2018))."

Ex parte Runnels, 364 So. 3d 979, 982 (Ala. 2022) (footnote omitted).

                                  Analysis

     The City and the detectives argue that the trial court erred in

denying their motion for a summary judgment because, they argue, the

detectives are entitled to peace-officer immunity pursuant to § 6-5-338(a)

and State-agent immunity pursuant to Cranman, as modified by Hollis.

Section 6-5-338(a) provides, in pertinent part: "Every peace officer ...

shall at all times be deemed to be officers of this state, and as such shall

have immunity from tort liability arising out of his or her conduct in

performance of any discretionary function within the line and scope of his

or her law enforcement duties."

     In Ex parte City of Montgomery, 272 So. 3d 155, 160 (Ala. 2018),

this court explained:

     " 'The restatement of State-agent immunity as set out by this
     Court in Ex parte Cranman ... governs the determination of
     whether a peace officer is entitled to immunity under § 6-5-
     338(a). Ex parte City of Tuskegee, 932 So. 2d 895, 904 (Ala.
     2005).' Ex parte City of Montgomery, 99 So. 3d 282, 292 (Ala.
     2012). Specifically,

                                     6
SC-2023-0735

         " 'peace officers are afforded immunity by Ala.
         Code 1975, § 6-5-338(a), and the test for State-
         agent immunity set forth in Ex parte Cranman,
         792 So. 2d 392 (Ala. 2000), as modified in Hollis v.
         City of Brighton, 950 So. 2d 300 (Ala. 2006)
         (incorporating      the     peace-officer-immunity
         standard provided in § 6-5-338(a) into the State-
         agent-immunity analysis found in Cranman)....
         Under that formulation,

                    " ' " '[a] State agent shall be
               immune from civil liability in his or her
               personal capacity when the conduct
               made the basis of the claim against the
               agent is based upon the agent's

                     " ' " '….

                     " ' " '(4) exercising judgment in the
               enforcement of the criminal laws of the
               State, including, but not limited to,
               law-enforcement officers' arresting or
               attempting to arrest persons, or
               serving as peace officers under
               circumstances entitling such officers to
               immunity pursuant to § 6-5-338(a),
               Ala. Code 1975.' "

         " 'Hollis, 950 So. 2d at 309 (quoting and modifying
         Cranman, 792 So. 2d at 405). In certain
         circumstances, a peace officer is not entitled to
         such immunity from an action seeking liability in
         his or her individual capacity:

                    " ' "(1) when the Constitution or
               laws of the United States, or the
               Constitution of this State, or laws,
                                   7
SC-2023-0735

                rules, or regulations of this State
                enacted or promulgated for the purpose
                of regulating the activities of a
                governmental      agency        require
                otherwise; or

                      " ' "(2) when the State agent acts
                willfully, maliciously, fraudulently, in
                bad faith, beyond his or her authority,
                or under a mistaken interpretation of
                the law."

           " 'Cranman, 792 So. 2d at 405.'

     "Suttles v. Roy, 75 So. 3d 90, 94 (Ala. 2010) (emphasis
     omitted).

           " 'A State agent asserting State-agent immunity
           "bears the burden of demonstrating that the
           plaintiff's claims arise from a function that would
           entitle the State agent to immunity." [Ex parte
           Estate of Reynolds,] 946 So. 2d [450,] 452 [(Ala.
           2006)]. Should the State agent make such a
           showing, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to
           show that one of the two categories of exceptions
           to State-agent immunity recognized in Cranman is
           applicable.'

     "Ex parte Kennedy, 992 So. 2d 1276, 1282-83 (Ala. 2008); see
     also Wilson[ v. Manning], 880 So. 2d [1101,] 1111 [(Ala. 2003)]
     (noting that, when the burden at summary-judgment stage
     has shifted to the nonmovant, the nonmovant must present
     'substantial evidence from which a reasonable juror could
     infer' the existence of the fact at issue)."

(Footnote omitted.)

                                   8
SC-2023-0735

     To establish that the plaintiff's claims arose from a function that

would entitle the detectives to State-agent immunity, the City and the

detectives are required to "establish (1) that [the detectives] were peace

officers (2) performing law-enforcement duties at the time of the

[incident] and (3) exercising judgment and discretion." Ex parte City of

Homewood, 231 So. 3d 1082, 1087 (Ala. 2017). If the City and the

detectives can show that the detectives are entitled to State-agent

immunity under this standard, then the burden of proof shifts to the

plaintiff to show that one of the two Cranman exceptions apply.

     The parties do not dispute whether the detectives were exercising

judgment and discretion, within the line and scope of their duties as

peace officers, as required by § 6-5-338 and Homewood. The detectives

were responding to a call regarding an allegedly stolen vehicle and

approached the vehicle, with at least one of the detectives announcing

that they were police officers. Only whether Davis's use of deadly force

fits within one of the two Cranman exceptions is disputed. Accordingly,

the detectives are entitled to immunity unless the plaintiff can show that

one of the two Cranman exceptions apply.

                                    9
SC-2023-0735

     With respect to Favor and Shirah, the plaintiff has not argued that

either of the two Cranman exceptions apply, presumably because neither

engaged in the use of deadly force. The plaintiff focuses only on whether

Davis acted beyond the scope of his authority or whether he violated

§ 13A-3-27, Ala. Code 1975. Thus, the plaintiff has not shown why Favor

and Shirah should not be afforded immunity, and, as a result, the trial

court erred when it denied the motion for a summary judgment as to

them.

     With respect to Davis, the plaintiff first contends that Davis acted

beyond the scope of his authority by, he argues, violating Montgomery

Police Department Rules and Regulations, Policy 2.206.2 Policy 2.206

states: "Deadly force may be used in defense of life when authorized by

State law in the performance of lawful duty when all other reasonable

means have been exhausted." (Emphasis added.) The plaintiff argues

that the detectives approached the vehicle with their weapons drawn

and, as a result, "did not leave room for any means other than deadly

force, essentially violating [Montgomery Police Department] Rules and

_________________________
      2The plaintiff references both Policy 3.3.2 and Policy 2.206.

However, only Policy 2.206 was in effect at the time of the conduct giving
rise to his claims.
                                  10
SC-2023-0735

Regulations 2.206." Answer at 21. However, no rules or regulations cited

by the plaintiff prohibited the detectives from drawing their weapons,

particularly when approaching a potentially dangerous situation.

Moreover, Davis did not have his weapon drawn when approaching the

vehicle or at any time prior to firing his weapon. Thus, the plaintiff's

argument is without merit.

     Next, the plaintiff argues that Davis's use of deadly force violated

§ 13A-3-27, which provides, in relevant part:

           "(b) A peace officer is justified in using deadly physical
     force upon another person when and to the extent that he
     reasonably believes it necessary in order:

                "….

               "(2) To defend himself or a third person from
           what he reasonably believes to be the use or
           imminent use of deadly physical force."

     The plaintiff contends that there is a question of material fact as to

whether Davis reasonably believed that he was defending Favor from the

use of deadly physical force. Specifically, he argues that Davis's

testimony, when viewed in light most favorable to him, suggests that,

although Favor was on the ground directly in front of the vehicle, Davis

had not heard any sound indicating that Knighton had shifted the

                                   11
SC-2023-0735

transmission of the vehicle from reverse into drive. Thus, according to

the plaintiff, there was at least a material question of fact as to whether

Favor was in imminent danger of being run over by Knighton. We

disagree.

     The undisputed facts indicate that when the detectives attempted

to stop Knighton, she entered the allegedly stolen vehicle and attempted

to flee. As the detectives surrounded the vehicle, she ignored their

commands to exit the vehicle and, instead, accelerated the vehicle in

reverse, knocking down Favor and Shirah and leaving Favor in a position

on the ground in front of the vehicle near the driver's side front tire.

Undisputed testimony further indicated that Knighton's only route of

escape would have required her to drive straight ahead and, thus, over

Favor. Under the circumstances, it is clear from the undisputed facts that

Favor was in a position of imminent life-threatening peril, and we reject

the plaintiff's contention that, under such circumstances, any applicable

law or regulation required Davis to wait until Favor was actively being

run over before he acted. See Thurmond v. City of Huntsville, 904 So. 2d

314, 320 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004) ("[D]iscretionary-function immunity must

exist because a police officer should not be required to 'ponder and

                                   12
SC-2023-0735

ruminate over decisions that should be made in a split second.' " (citation

omitted)); see also Blackwood v. City of Hanceville, 936 So. 2d 495, 507-

08 (Ala. 2006). Thus, the plaintiff has not shown by substantial evidence

that one of the two Cranman exceptions applies, and, as a result, the trial

court erred when it denied the motion for a summary judgment as to

Davis.

     Finally, because all the detectives are entitled to immunity, the

City is also entitled to summary judgment. See Industrial Dev. Bd. of

City of Montgomery v. Russell, 124 So. 3d 127, 137 (Ala. 2013) (" ' "[T]he

vicarious liability of a putative master under the rule of respondeat

superior depends upon the liability of the putative servant." ' " (citations

omitted)); and Ex parte City of Gadsden, 781 So. 2d 936, 940 (Ala. 2000)

(holding that when a peace officer is immune under § 6-5-338(a), that

immunity is extended to the municipality employing the officer).

                                Conclusion

     For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the detectives are

each entitled to peace-officer immunity pursuant to § 6-5-338 and State-

agent immunity pursuant to Cranman, as modified by Hollis, and that

that immunity extends to the City. Accordingly, we grant the mandamus

                                    13
SC-2023-0735

petition and direct the trial court to enter an order granting the City and

the detectives' motion for a summary judgment.

     PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.

     Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Bryan, Sellers, Mendheim, Mitchell, and

Cook, JJ., concur.

     Wise, J., recuses herself.

                                   14