Johnny Banks v. Shelby Hawkins

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
999 F.3d 521 (2021)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

The use of deadly force against a suspect is objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment if the suspect does not pose an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or others, even if the officer has been struck by an object not attributable to the suspect.

Facts:

Vanessa Banks called 911 to report a verbal argument with her husband, Johnny Banks.
Officer Shelby Hawkins was dispatched to the residence to investigate the potential domestic disturbance.
Upon arrival, Hawkins heard a woman's muffled voice inside but received no answer when he knocked.
Hawkins walked around the house, heard a noise, returned to the front door, drew his gun, and began kicking the door.
Johnny Banks opened the door after shouting to ask who was there.
As the door opened, Hawkins was struck in the head by an unknown object.
Hawkins immediately shot Banks, severing a nerve in his leg.
It is undisputed that Banks was unarmed, did not hit Hawkins, and did not throw the object that struck the officer.

Procedural Posture:

Johnny Banks filed a lawsuit against Hawkins and the City of Shannon Hills in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas alleging excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Hawkins filed a motion for summary judgment asserting the defense of qualified immunity.
The District Court denied Hawkins's motion for summary judgment regarding the excessive force claim.
Hawkins filed an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit challenging the 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:

Is a police officer entitled to qualified immunity for using deadly force against an unarmed suspect immediately upon the suspect opening his door, where the officer was struck by an object not thrown by the suspect and the suspect posed no immediate threat?

Opinions:

Majority - Kelly

No, a police officer is not entitled to qualified immunity when they use deadly force against an individual who does not present an immediate threat of death or serious injury. The Court reasoned that under the Fourth Amendment, the reasonableness of force depends on the facts known to the officer at the precise moment of the seizure. Here, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Banks, he was unarmed, did not act aggressively, and did not cause the injury Hawkins suffered from the falling object. The Court rejected the argument that the officer's fear justified the shooting, noting that a reasonable officer would have realized the object did not come from Banks. Furthermore, the Court found this right was clearly established by prior precedents such as Ellison v. Lesher and Nance v. Sammis, which prohibit deadly force against non-threatening suspects even in dangerous environments.

Dissenting - Stras

Yes, the officer should be granted qualified immunity because the specific right was not clearly established in this particularized factual scenario. The dissent argued that the majority defined the legal right at too high a level of generality. Judge Stras emphasized the chaotic nature of the domestic disturbance call and the fact that Hawkins was physically struck in the head immediately before firing. The dissent contended that because Hawkins faced a "split-second judgment" in a tense environment, and because no prior case involved an officer being physically struck by an object before shooting, Hawkins did not have fair notice that his reaction violated the Constitution.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the high standard for the use of deadly force, clarifying that an officer's subjective fear or confusion—even when caused by a physical injury from an unknown source—does not automatically justify shooting a suspect. It emphasizes that the "immediate threat" analysis focuses on the suspect's specific actions at the moment force is used. The ruling limits the scope of qualified immunity by rejecting the notion that any physical contact or chaotic atmosphere grants an officer carte blanche to use lethal force. It requires officers to differentiate between environmental hazards (like falling objects) and actual threats posed by a suspect before pulling the trigger.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Johnny Banks v. Shelby Hawkins (2021)

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