George Cooper, Sr. v. James Sheehan

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
735 F.3d 153, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22616, 2013 WL 5943431 (2013)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The use of deadly force against an individual is not objectively reasonable, and thus violates the Fourth Amendment, if the officer has no objective basis to believe the individual poses a threat of serious physical harm. The mere possession of a firearm by an individual on their own property, without any threatening action, is insufficient to justify the use of deadly force, particularly when officers have not identified themselves.

Facts:

A neighbor called 911 to report a disturbance involving two males screaming at George Cooper, Sr.'s property late one night.
Deputy Sheriffs James Sheehan and Brian Carlisle arrived at the rural property without activating their patrol car lights or sirens.
Hearing a heated argument inside, the Officers approached the mobile home on foot and tapped on a window with a flashlight but did not announce their presence or identify themselves as law enforcement.
In response to the noise, Cooper uttered obscenities, peered out his back door, and, seeing nothing, retrieved his twenty-gauge shotgun to investigate.
Cooper opened his back door, stepped onto his darkened porch holding the shotgun with its muzzle pointed toward the ground, and called out for anyone in the yard to identify themselves.
As the Officers were advancing toward the porch, they saw Cooper emerge with the shotgun.
Without issuing any commands or identifying themselves, the Officers immediately drew their weapons and opened fire on Cooper.
Cooper was struck by five or six bullets but survived his injuries.

Procedural Posture:

George Cooper, Sr. filed a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina against Officers Sheehan and Carlisle, among others.
The Officers moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity from Cooper's federal excessive force claims and public officers' immunity from his state law claims.
The district court denied summary judgment on the excessive force claims against the Officers, finding that they were not entitled to immunity.
The Officers (appellants) filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial of immunity to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, with Cooper as the appellee.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the use of deadly force against a man who emerges from his home with a shotgun pointed at the ground violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against excessive force when the police officers did not identify themselves and the man made no threatening gestures or statements?

Opinions:

Majority - Judge King

Yes, the use of deadly force violated the Fourth Amendment. The court held that an officer's use of deadly force is objectively unreasonable when the facts do not support a probable cause belief that a suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm. Here, Cooper's actions were not threatening; he stood on his own property, holding a shotgun with the muzzle pointed at the ground, made no sudden moves, issued no threats, and ignored no commands because none were given. Crucially, the Officers never identified themselves, so a reasonable officer could not have believed Cooper was aware of their presence and was therefore acting with hostility towards law enforcement. The court distinguished this case from others where deadly force was justified, reasoning that in those scenarios the threat was objectively real even if the weapon was not, whereas here, 'the shotgun was real, but... the threat was not.'

Analysis:

This decision significantly reinforces the principle that the mere presence of a firearm does not automatically justify the use of deadly force under the Fourth Amendment. It narrows the scope of qualified immunity by emphasizing the importance of officers' own actions, such as failing to identify themselves, in the totality of the circumstances analysis. The case establishes that a citizen's reasonable act of arming themselves to investigate a potential intruder on their own property cannot be the sole justification for deadly force if they are unaware of the police presence. This precedent requires courts to scrutinize situations where an officer's conduct may have contributed to the creation of a perceived, but not actual, threat.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: George Cooper, Sr. v. James Sheehan (2013)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature