Legal Opinions - U.S. District Court, Maryland

Daily Record, The (Baltimore), Jul 7, 2008

After a substantial amount of discovery, the district court denied a motion for summary judgment filed by Purnell. See Henry v. Purnell, 428 F. Supp. 2d 393 (D. Md. 2006)("Purnell I"). Simultaneously, the court granted Henry's motion to obtain discovery regarding training Purnell had received regarding the use of the Taser.

The 4th Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, vacated in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. See Purnell v. Henry, 501 F.3d 374 (4th Cir. 2007) ("Purnell II").

On remand, Purnell renewed his motion for summary judgment. The district court granted that motion.

LAW: The 4th Circuit's opinion in Purnell II made it clear that the district court was to decide on remand, after additional discovery had been conducted, whether Purnell's use of his Glock was reasonable and therefore not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Henry had the burden of proving that Purnell's use of the Glock was unreasonable. See Purnell II, 501 F.3d at 377-78.

The Supreme Court has recognized that there is a "need to allow some latitude for honest mistakes that are made by law enforcement officers in the dangerous and difficult process of making arrests and executing search warrants." Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 87 (1987).

The 4th Circuit has read this "honest mistake" doctrine broadly in finding that a number of acts committed by police officers are constitutionally reasonable. For example, in Mazuz v. Maryland, 442 F.3d 217 (4th Cir. 2006), the court found that a police officer's mistaken search of the wrong dormitory room that resulted in a brief detention but no physical or other injury was reasonable.

Likewise, in McLenagan v. Kanres, 27 F.3d 1002, 1008 (4th Cir. 1992), the court held that an officer's shooting of a person he mistakenly believed to be the person posing a threat was reasonable.

To similar effect is Milstead v. Kibler, 243 F.3d 157 (4th Cir. 2001). In Milstead, the police officer mistakenly shot and killed an innocent bystander who was the victim, rather than the perpetrator of the crime that the officer had been called to the scene to disrupt. Id. at 163.

Ultimately, because the mistaken shooting in Milstead was found to be reasonable under the "rapidly evolving circumstances," id. at 165, the 4th Circuit found that the decedent's constitutional rights had not been violated when he was shot and killed, id. at 160. In so finding, the court analyzed two different situations. Id. at 163- 164. In the first situation, an officer, aiming his or her weapon at the actual suspect who presents a legitimate threat, shoots and misses the suspect and hits an innocent bystander. Id. Under such circumstances, there is no constitutional violation because there is no "seizure that implicates the Fourth Amendment." Id. at 164.

In the instant case, it was already established that a seizure occurred because Purnell intended to detain Henry with his Taser even though he did not intend to shoot Henry with his Glock. Purnell I, 428 F.Supp. 2d at 395-96.