4th Circuit: Officers entitled to qualified immunity in shooting

Where the undisputed evidence showed that, just before the officers fired, a man’s gun was pointed at two officers, the officers’ use of force in response to this perceived threat was not unreasonable. As such, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity against the man’s federal claims.

Background

When four Pineville Police Department officers responded to a 911 call on the morning of Feb. 1, 2020, they expected to find “a black male walking around, waving a gun at [passersby],” Instead, they found Timothy Caraway walking alone down the empty sidewalk with his arms at his sides and a cellphone in his left hand.

Yet the officers exited their vehicles, weapons at the ready and shouted a series of commands for Caraway to both raise his hands and drop what they thought was a gun. As Caraway tried to comply by reaching into his jacket with his right hand to discard the gun he’d stored there, officers Adam Roberts and Jamon Griffin fired twelve shots—four of which struck Caraway.

Caraway sued the four officers and the City of Pineville, raising claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and North Carolina law. As relevant to this appeal, the district court granted summary judgment to Roberts and Griffin on each of Caraway’s claims after finding that they were entitled to qualified immunity and public official immunity on Caraway’s Fourth Amendment excessive force and state-law assault and battery claims, respectively.

Analysis

Caraway first argues that the district court misapplied the summary judgment standard because the evidence created genuine disputes of material fact. According to Caraway, the district court’s gravest mistake was relying on the internal investigation report to determine that after the officers got his attention, Caraway “turned, thrust his right hand into his pocket, and pulled out a handgun with the barrel facing the officers.” Caraway says this finding was erroneous because whether he was pointing a gun at the officers before they fired “is the most contested fact in this action,” id., so it should have been resolved in his favor as the nonmoving party.

The court recognizes the peculiarity of the district court’s choice to largely ignore evidence like the body camera and surveillance footage in favor of the internal investigation report commissioned by the Pineville Police Department. But it can’t agree that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the officers, even when considering that other evidence and viewing it in Caraway’s favor, as this evidence fails to create a triable issue of fact. In sum, there was no genuine issue of material fact that the gun was pointed in the direction of at least some officers. The district court didn’t err on this point.

Qualified immunity

A court’s qualified immunity analysis asks two questions: “(1) whether a statutory or constitutional violation occurred, and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” Caraway contends that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” When a plaintiff contends that a seizure violated the Fourth Amendment, “the question is whether the officers’ actions are ‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them.”

The officers had an objective basis to believe that Caraway was a threat in the moments right before the shooting. That’s because the undisputed evidence shows that just before the officers fired, Caraway’s gun was pointed at French and Roberts. This court therefore can’t find that the officers’ use of force in response to this perceived threat was unreasonable. That the officers saw Caraway holding a gun that they reasonably believed would be used against them was enough to justify their decision to deploy force.

Shots

Caraway argues the district court erred by failing to analyze the reasonableness of the shots fired at the beginning of the encounter separately from those fired after he had fallen to the ground. Although the video evidence offers a general overview of the shooting, it’s hardly precise enough to conduct the frame-by-frame, second-by-second shot-by-shot analysis that Caraway would have this court0 undertake.

State claims

Even taking all the evidence in the record—including the video evidence—in the light most favorable to Caraway, the officers’ conduct was objectively reasonable. Thus, Caraway’s assault and battery claims fail as a matter of law. But even if the claims were viable, they couldn’t proceed, as Roberts and Griffin are entitled to public official immunity under North Carolina law.

Affirmed.

Dissenting opinion

Alston, J., dissenting:

The majority has engaged in a thorough review of the background and analysis of the matter before the court. And essentially, there is little disagreement with most of the factual predicates underlying its opinion. Respectfully though, I disagree with how these salient facts should be construed.

Caraway v. City of Pineville, Case No. 22-2281, Aug. 6, 2024. 4th Cir. (Diaz), from WDNC at Charlotte (Whitney). Micheal Leray Littlejohn Jr. for Appellant. Scott Douglas MacLatchie for Appellees. 42 pp.