Jerry Smith, Jr. v. Melvin Finkley
Not available in provided text (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Appellate courts lack jurisdiction to review a district court's denial of qualified immunity on interlocutory appeal when the officers' entitlement to immunity is dependent upon and inseparable from unresolved, material factual disputes concerning the nature of the suspect's threat or resistance that body camera footage does not unequivocally resolve.
Facts:
- Jerry Smith, Jr. reportedly left the scene of a fight and returned with a gun, prompting a citizen complaint to the police.
- Milwaukee police officers Robert Ferrell and Matthew Wenzel encountered Smith, who matched the description, and observed a bulky, L-shaped object in his left pants pocket, which they believed to be a gun.
- When asked to stop and talk, Smith walked rapidly away, then ran south on 29th Street, using his left hand to cover and hold the object in his pocket.
- Ferrell and Wenzel chased Smith, who eluded them, and they later found him hiding behind a waist-high air conditioning unit on the roof of a parking garage one block away.
- A standoff ensued on the roof for approximately 90 seconds, with Ferrell and Wenzel repeatedly shouting commands to Smith to show his hands and get on the ground, but Smith did not consistently comply.
- Officers Melvin Finkley and Adam Stahl arrived, climbed onto the roof, and were informed by Ferrell that Smith had been hiding behind an AC unit, but did not have a gun in his hand.
- As Finkley and Stahl approached Smith on the roof, Smith moved towards the northeast corner, then stepped toward Finkley with an AC unit between them, and made a downward movement behind the unit.
- Finkley and Stahl shot Smith three times, hitting him in the head and pelvis, causing serious injuries, and no gun was found on him or the roof.
Procedural Posture:
- Jerry Smith, Jr. sued Officers Melvin Finkley and Adam Stahl under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
- Finkley and Stahl moved for summary judgment, contending that their use of deadly force was reasonable and, alternatively, that they were entitled to qualified immunity.
- The district court denied the officers' motion for summary judgment, concluding that a reasonable jury could find they lacked probable cause to believe Smith posed an immediate threat, and thus were not entitled to qualified immunity at that stage.
- Finkley and Stahl (Defendants-Appellants) filed an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit from the district court's denial of qualified immunity.
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 appellate court have jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal of a district court's denial of qualified immunity when the officers' entitlement to immunity depends on unresolved, material factual disputes regarding the suspect's actions and the immediacy of the threat he posed?
Opinions:
Majority - Brennan, Circuit Judge
No, an appellate court does not have jurisdiction to review a district court's denial of qualified immunity when the officers' entitlement to immunity depends on unresolved, material factual disputes regarding the suspect's actions and the immediacy of the threat he posed. The Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal, holding that the district court's denial of qualified immunity was based on unresolved, material factual disputes that were inseparable from the qualified immunity defense, thus precluding interlocutory appellate review under Johnson v. Jones. The court identified two critical factual disputes: (1) how Smith moved to the ground before and as he was shot (whether he was lunging, surrendering, or responding to a previous command to get down) and (2) whether Smith posed an immediate threat to the officers. These disputes directly impact the Graham v. Connor factors (severity of the crime, immediate threat, active resistance) essential to determining whether a constitutional violation occurred and if a clearly established right was violated. The body camera videos, while providing a factual record, did not 'blatantly contradict or corroborate' either party's version of these specific movements, leaving the 'how and why' unresolved. Therefore, resolving the qualified immunity defense at this stage would require the appellate court to impermissibly resolve factual disputes, which it lacks jurisdiction to do on an interlocutory appeal of summary judgment.
Dissenting - Sykes, Chief Judge
Yes, an appellate court does have jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal of a district court's denial of qualified immunity even with disputed interpretations of a suspect's actions, because the core question is a legal one. Chief Judge Sykes dissented, arguing that Plumhoff v. Rickard, not Johnson v. Jones, controls the jurisdictional question. She contended that Johnson applies only to 'pure questions of historical fact' or 'evidence sufficiency,' whereas here, the officers admit their actions and the historical facts (who, what, where) are 'preserved on video and are not disputed.' She asserted that the appeal presented a pure legal question: whether a reasonable officer would have clearly understood that using lethal force in this situation was unlawful, applying the qualified immunity standard to the video-recorded evidence. Sykes argued that the majority misapplied Johnson by treating the interpretation of ambiguous movements as factual disputes precluding jurisdiction. She emphasized that officers make split-second threat assessments and are afforded 'double deference' under Graham and qualified immunity. Given the high-pressure, uncertain situation, even if the officers misjudged Smith's ambiguous movement, their mistake was not unreasonable such that 'every reasonable officer would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.'
Analysis:
This case clarifies the limits of interlocutory appellate jurisdiction in qualified immunity cases, particularly when video evidence is available but not dispositive. It reinforces that genuine factual disputes regarding a suspect's immediate actions and threat level, even in the crucial moments before force is used, can prevent an appellate court from exercising jurisdiction over a denial of qualified immunity on summary judgment. The ruling underscores that video evidence must 'blatantly contradict' one party's account for a court to resolve facts at the summary judgment stage, otherwise, factual ambiguities must proceed to trial. This means officers may be compelled to undergo a trial to resolve liability even if their qualified immunity defense is strong, if critical factual interpretations remain genuinely disputed by the evidence.
