Fourth Amendment excessive force claim under 42 USC § 1983; Whether defendant-deputy’s use of deadly force was “unreasonable”; Palma v Johns; Whether there was an “imminent threat of violence”; Whether defendant considered plaintiff’s mental state; Duration of the confrontation; Whether non-violent methods could have been used; Whether there was a violation of “clearly established law”; Sample v Bailey; Mullins v Cyranek; Martin v City of Broadview Heights

The court affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to defendant-Deputy Smiley, concluding her use of deadly force when conducting a “welfare check” was unreasonable. She responded to a call from a public park. Dispatch reported to her that a man “was running down the trail with a big water jug in his hands and making a strange noise like ‘rolling his R’s,’ that he had previously been inside the car with his head on the steering wheel, and that there may have been a lighter inside his car. Dispatch also relayed” the caller’s “suspicion that ‘he might be on something.’” The individual was plaintiff-Driscoll, who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and could become erratic during his manic phase. Smiley and Driscoll’s interaction eventually resulted in Smiley shooting Driscoll as he approached her. He was permanently injured, and sued under § 1983. The court noted that their encounter was “brief” and that she had no reason to think that Driscoll was dangerous or armed where he was only carrying a jug of water. Even though she may have believed that the jug contained gasoline and that he had a lighter in his car, she had “no reason to think that Driscoll was about to ignite his jug.” The court also found that it “was unreasonable for Deputy Smiley to conclude from his erratic behavior that he posed an imminent threat of serious physical harm.” It held that given that he “he posed no threat to Deputy Smiley or anyone else, his evident diminished capacity supports the conclusion that Deputy Smiley’s actions throughout the encounter were unreasonable.” She was presented “with a noncompliant but non-dangerous person. He had no weapon and gave no indication that he intended to harm others. He was not breaking any laws. Indeed, Deputy Smiley had been called to check on his well-being. That his behavior confused or concerned [her] and others in the park did not provide justification for the use of force, much less deadly force. Nor did his noncompliance with Deputy Smiley’s orders justify lethal force.” Further, viewing “the facts in the light favorable to Driscoll, Deputy Smiley violated [his] clearly established right not to be shot as an unarmed, nondangerous person, even though he was displaying erratic and noncompliant behavior and advancing toward” her. The court found that because Martin put her “on notice that she could not use a lower level of force on Driscoll, her use of greater force was clearly unreasonable under similar circumstances.”