Abigail Marilyn Ayers v. Officer Billy Shane Harrison
650 F. App'x 709 (2016)
Rule of Law:
A police officer is not entitled to qualified immunity for using deadly force against a suspect who, reasonably believing they are being attacked by unidentified assailants, attempts to retreat and poses no imminent threat of serious harm to the officer or others. Preexisting law clearly establishes that using deadly force against an unarmed, non-dangerous, and retreating suspect violates the Fourth Amendment.
Facts:
- Plain-clothed officers, including Officer Billy Shane Harrison, approached Reverend Jonathan Ayers in a gas station parking lot while driving an unmarked pickup truck.
- The officers' unmarked truck partially blocked Reverend Ayers' car without warning.
- Officer Harrison exited the truck with his gun drawn but did not identify himself as a police officer.
- Reverend Ayers, reasonably believing he was about to be robbed by unknown assailants, put his car in reverse to back away and escape.
- While backing up, Reverend Ayers did not attempt to strike or run over any of the officers.
- Another officer, Chance Oxner, was out of any danger when the shot was fired.
- As Reverend Ayers was retreating and driving away in reverse, Officer Harrison shot and killed him.
Procedural Posture:
- Abigail Ayers, as representative for her deceased husband Jonathan Ayers, sued Officer Billy Shane Harrison in the U.S. District Court, alleging a civil rights violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The district court denied Officer Harrison's motion for summary judgment, which was based on a claim of qualified immunity.
- Officer Harrison, as appellant, filed an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity.
- The case returned to the district court for a jury trial.
- The jury found for Abigail Ayers, the plaintiff, and awarded $2.3 million in damages.
- Following the verdict, the district court reduced the damages award to $1.64 million and denied Officer Harrison's motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for a new trial.
- Officer Harrison, as defendant-appellant, appealed the final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; Ms. Ayers, as plaintiff-appellee, cross-appealed the damages reduction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a police officer entitled to qualified immunity for using deadly force against a suspect who, reasonably believing he was being attacked by plain-clothed individuals in an unmarked vehicle, attempted to retreat and posed no immediate threat of serious harm to the officer or others?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A police officer is not entitled to qualified immunity because preexisting law clearly established that using deadly force against an unarmed, non-dangerous, and retreating suspect violates the Fourth Amendment. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, Officer Harrison's use of deadly force was objectively unreasonable. The jury was entitled to find that Reverend Ayers reasonably believed he was being robbed by armed assailants, was attempting to retreat, and posed no imminent threat to the officers or the public. Prior Eleventh Circuit precedents, specifically Gilmere v. City of Atlanta and Lundgren v. McDaniel, had already placed the unconstitutionality of using deadly force against an unarmed, non-dangerous suspect beyond debate, thereby providing Officer Harrison with fair warning that his conduct was unlawful.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the limitations of the qualified immunity defense, particularly in scenarios where an officer's own actions contribute to the escalation of a situation. The court's deference to the jury's factual findings post-verdict demonstrates how a plaintiff can overcome qualified immunity at trial even after it has been challenged pre-trial. The ruling emphasizes that the 'clearly established' standard does not require a factually identical precedent, but rather that existing case law provides 'reasonable warning' to an officer that their conduct is unconstitutional. This case will likely be cited to argue against qualified immunity where officers fail to identify themselves and their actions provoke a suspect's flight, which is then used to justify deadly force.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Abigail Marilyn Ayers v. Officer Billy Shane Harrison (2016)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"