James Horton v. Frank Pobjecky
883 F.3d 941 (2018)
Sections
Rule of Law:
Under the Fourth Amendment, an officer's use of deadly force is objectively reasonable if, under the totality of the circumstances known at the time, the officer reasonably believes the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or others, even if the suspect is unarmed or attempting to flee.
Facts:
- Four men attempted to rob a pizzeria; one assailant brandished a gun while Michael Sago acted as the lookout at the front door.
- Off-duty Officer Pobjecky, initially unarmed, witnessed the manager struggle with the gunman and subsequently obtained the manager's concealed weapon.
- Pobjecky fired upon the group, shooting three of the assailants in rapid succession.
- Sago, who was unarmed, began crawling toward the front door to leave the premises.
- Pobjecky shot Sago three times in the lower back as Sago moved away from him.
- Following the shooting, Pobjecky locked the pizzeria door and remained inside with an empty gun, rather than going outside to render aid.
- Sago succumbed to his injuries on the sidewalk, and paramedics arrived approximately eleven minutes after the shooting.
Procedural Posture:
- Horton (Administrator of Sago's estate) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Pobjecky, the Sheriff, and the County, alleging Section 1983 violations and state law claims.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of all Defendants on all counts, finding no constitutional violations.
- Horton appealed the District Court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
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 an off-duty police officer violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against excessive force by shooting an unarmed robbery suspect in the back as the suspect crawls toward an exit during a chaotic armed robbery?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Manion
No, the officer's use of deadly force was objectively reasonable given the desperate and rapidly evolving circumstances of an armed robbery. The court emphasized that reasonableness must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, not through the lens of hindsight. Although Sago was unarmed and crawling away, Pobjecky had no way of knowing Sago was unarmed. Sago was participating in a violent felony, wearing clothing that could conceal a weapon, and was moving during a chaotic firefight. The court relied on Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor, noting that officers are not required to take unnecessary risks when facing multiple assailants. Furthermore, preventing the escape of a suspect involved in a violent crime who may pose a danger to the community is constitutionally permissible. Regarding the medical care claim, the court found it reasonable for Pobjecky to remain inside the locked building for his own safety rather than venturing out with an empty weapon.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high degree of deference courts grant to law enforcement officers making split-second decisions in life-threatening situations. It clarifies that a suspect's attempt to flee or 'surrender' (by crawling away) does not automatically negate the threat they pose, especially when they are accomplices in an active armed robbery. The ruling underscores that the objective reasonableness standard focuses on what the officer knew at that moment; facts discovered later (such as the suspect being unarmed) are irrelevant to the liability analysis. This case serves as a strong precedent for the defense of qualified immunity in cases involving 'defense of others' and chaotic multi-suspect encounters.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: James Horton v. Frank Pobjecky (2018)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"