Federal Appeals Court rules for Charlotte in 2018 shooting lawsuit

The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled for Charlotte and three police officers in a lawsuit connected to the 2018 shooting of a mentally ill man.

Appellate judges rejected arguments from Bobby Morgan and his mother Felicia that police violated Morgan’s 4th Amendment rights and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Monday’s unanimous decision upheld a trial judge’s decision to dismiss the Morgans’ lawsuit.

“Bobby Morgan suffers from bipolar and schizoaffective disorders,” Judge Harvie Wilkinson wrote. “One morning, he called the police about two neighbors and threatened to shoot them while wielding a pistol.”

“He then retreated to his home, fired his gun twice, and holed up inside for roughly half an hour as police contained the area,” Wilkinson continued. “Eventually, Bobby resumed firing, doing so repeatedly and haphazardly into the neighborhood. At that point, officers shot Bobby three times.”

Morgan survived the shooting.

“Bobby’s pistol turned out to be a ‘prop gun,’” the 4th Circuit opinion added. “While it looked realistic on the outside, it could fire only blanks, not bullets. Understandably troubled, Bobby’s mother and legal guardian, Felicia Morgan, sued on his behalf.”

“She claimed that the officers used excessive force when they shot at Bobby, violating his Fourth Amendment rights,” Wilkinson wrote. “She further alleged the City of Charlotte failed to accommodate Bobby’s ailments, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (‘ADA’), because local police did not adequately try to deescalate the situation. Disagreeing, the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants.”

“It was right to do so,” he added. “Although the facts here are undoubtedly sad, unfortunate circumstances do not always yield legal liability. Here, a reasonable officer on the scene would have had good reason to believe that Bobby posed a threat of serious physical harm. The police also acted reasonably in trying to accommodate Bobby’s illnesses. We affirm.”

Wilkinson explained why the Morgans’ excessive force argument fell short.

“The familiar totality-of-the-circumstances test does not lend itself to any mechanical inquiry,” he wrote. “However, we have said one factor carries special importance: ‘whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of’ those around him.”

“Bobby posed just that,” Wilkinson added. “Numerous times, he drew and discharged his gun while defying orders from the police to stand down. Just as Bobby created a lethal danger to those around him, the police responded with lethal force. That is, there was a one-for-one ‘relationship between the need for the use of force and the amount of force used.’”

“We recognize Bobby testified that he merely shot his gun aimlessly, which of course presented a lower risk of harm than had he been shooting directly at people,” the appellate opinion continued. “But the threat was still present, and it was still grave.”

“Considering that Bobby was firing in a densely populated and residential part of Charlotte, the officers had particularly good reason to believe he was threatening the lives of — if not their fellow officers — the rest of the neighborhood,” Wilkinson wrote. “Such a serious risk of harm ‘to others’ suffices to warrant the use of deadly force.”

The fact that Morgan did not use a real gun didn’t change the analysis, Wilkinson explained.

“Bobby’s firearm looked like a working gun, sounded like a working gun, and behaved like a working gun,” the judge wrote. “Without being told otherwise, a reasonable officer would think it could fire actual, lethal bullets.”

Felicia Morgan “cannot carry her burden under the ADA” to prove that Charlotte officers violated the law, Wilkinson added.

“For starters, law enforcement tried to accommodate Bobby,” according to the court opinion. “Over an eleven-minute conversation, [officer Joseph] Ellis pitched ways for Bobby to peacefully resolve future disputes with his neighbors, such as by calling the police whenever he felt threatened. But Bobby refused each one, instead rambling on about how he would kill his neighbors the next time they approached him.”

“Bobby then ended the conversation, despite Ellis’s desire to keep talking things over, and personally communicated these threats to his neighbors before retreating to his property,” Wilkinson wrote. “When Bobby returned, Ellis again tried to calm him down — even after Bobby appeared to reach for his pistol. Bobby then stormed back inside and, minutes later, fired the first shot. Through it all, Bobby firmly declined law enforcement’s invitations to enter an interactive process to identify a mutually workable accommodation.”

“[T]he officers’ actions during the standoff strike us as entirely reasonable,” the opinion added. “Even after Bobby tendered death threats and fired his pistol, law enforcement did not barge in with guns blazing. Rather, they secured the area and waited for over half an hour, firing only in response Bobby’s frenzied shooting. At no point before then did Bobby show a desire to surrender.”

“Given such time-sensitive and life-threatening circumstances, the officers did all that was expected of them,” Wilkinson wrote. “Could they have defused matters by trying other deescalation tactics? Perhaps. But does that ipso facto render what they did unreasonable? Of course not.”

“We wish that these events had ended differently, and we regret the suffering that Bobby and Felicia experienced,” the 4th Circuit opinion concluded. “It goes without saying that mental illness is no trivial matter. At the same time, unfortunate circumstances alone do not automatically give rise to a cognizable legal claim — be it under the Constitution, the ADA, or elsewhere.”

“Here law enforcement reasonably believed Bobby posed an imminent threat of serious physical harm,” Wilkinson explained. “While the officers did what they could to turn down the temperature, Bobby’s chaotic shooting into the neighborhood left them little choice but to return fire.”

Judges Robert Bruce King and Roger Gregory joined Wilkinson’s opinion.

“Federal Appeals Court rules for Charlotte in 2018 shooting lawsuit” was originally published on www.carolinajournal.com.