Facts
(If you are new to 1983 actions, click here for help)
On October 12, 2019, at 2:25 a.m., the Fort Worth Police Department received a phone call from one of Atatiana Jefferson’s neighbors. The neighbor told the police that he was concerned that Jefferson’s front door was open. The neighbor also explicitly said that Jefferson’s door is usually closed. This sort of report is known as an “open structure call.” Aaron Dean responded to the call and arrived at Jefferson’s home at 2:28 a.m. Another police officer arrived shortly after Dean at 2:29 a.m. Following Department protocol, both officers parked around the corner out of view of the residence, and neither activated their emergency lights or sirens. The rationale behind such a protocol is to avoid notifying a potential burglar that the police are on the scene.
After arriving at the home, the officers approached the residence and looked through the front door’s screen window. Then, they walked around the house and looked through a screen door on the side of the home. The officers continued to walk around the house and use their flashlights to look for signs of a break in. They also checked the cars in the driveway and the garage, which they found closed. The officers finished the perimeter sweep by opening a gate on the side of the home and shining Dean’s flashlight through a window to look for a disturbance.
Around 2:30 a.m., Jefferson became aware that someone was outside her home. Unbeknownst to the officers, Jefferson was home watching her nephew. Jefferson and her nephew stayed up late playing video games and opened the door to let a breeze into the house. When Jefferson realized someone was outside, she stood up and walked to the window to look outside. She had no way of knowing it was the police and not an intruder outside of her home at this early hour of the morning.
When Jefferson’s figure appeared at the window, Dean pulled out his gun and pointed it at the window. Allegedly, Dean’s view of Jefferson was obstructed by the reflection of his flashlight. When Dean raised his gun he still did not announce himself as an officer. Instead, he said “Put your hands up! Show me your hands!” But before finishing this command, he fired a shot through the window which struck Jefferson. Then, both officers entered the home and attempted to give CPR to Jefferson. Jefferson was pronounced dead at 3:05 a.m. The blood loss from the gunshot wound killed her.
David Bakutis, as administer of Jefferson’s estate, sued Dean, arguing that it was an illegal search and that there was excessive force. Dean moved to dismiss, asserting qualified immunity. The district court denied Dean’s motion. The 5th granted Officer Dean qualified immunity for the search of the home (reversed the District Court) but denied qualified immunity to Officer Dean for the excessive force (agreed with the District Court).
Analysis
A. Qualified immunity for search of home under community caretaking doctrine
When Dean responded to the “open structure call” he was performing a community caretaking function. Community caretaking functions are totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute. Here, even if the officers suspected criminal activity such as a burglary, the police were not searching Jefferson’s property or home to find evidence of a crime committed by its residents. After all, one cannot burglarize, or criminally trespass on, his own home. Instead, the police were exercising a community caretaking function—checking to make sure Jefferson and the other residents of the home were safe. Because Dean was exercising a community caretaking function, it is not clearly established that Dean’s actions were an unreasonable search.
There is no standalone community caretaking doctrine that exempts all searches and seizures in the home from the Fourth Amendment. Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor this court has any precedent on “open structure calls,” so there is no clearly established law that would have given a reasonable officer in Dean’s position fair notice that his actions in response to the “open structure call” were unreasonable.
It is the plaintiff, Bakutis’s, burden to produce binding caselaw establishing that Dean’s perimeter sweep of the home in response to an “open structure call” was objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Because there is no clearly established precedent that Dean’s actions were unreasonable, he was not given “fair notice” that his actions were unreasonable. Dean is entitled to qualified immunity, and his motion to dismiss the unreasonable search claim should be granted. We REVERSE the district court on this point.
B. Excessive force
A reasonable officer in Dean’s position had “fair notice” that, without giving a warning, he could not use deadly force against Jefferson. SCOTUS jurisprudence, as well as our own, has repeatedly declared the use of deadly force to be objectively reasonable—for Fourth Amendment purposes—only when the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses an immediate and significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others and, if feasible, has given the suspect prior warning.
In Singleton, this Court denied summary judgment based on qualified immunity when the officer failed to identify himself as “police” despite clearly established law requiring him to provide a warning before shooting, when feasible.
Here, Jefferson was watching her nephew and heard someone outside of her home in the middle of the night. She, unsurprisingly, walked to the window to see who was there. Nothing suggests that Jefferson knew the police were at her home. Jefferson was not fleeing from the police. There is no allegation that she was violent or aggressive. And Dean does not assert that he believed Jefferson posed an immediate and significant threat to him or others. He does not allege that he saw her holding a weapon. Under these circumstances, it is clearly established that Dean was required to announce himself as an officer and issue a warning, prior to employing deadly force.
Based on the current record, every reasonable officer would have known that it is objectively unreasonable to shoot someone under these circumstances.
We AFFIRM the district court’s judgment on the excessive force claim, and REVERSE the district court’s judgment on the unreasonable search claim.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-10271-CV0.pdf