Theresa Mason-Funk v. City of Neenah

Citation: Not availableDocket: 17-3380

Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; July 10, 2018; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Theresa Mason-Funk filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Officers Craig Hoffer and Robert Ross of the Neenah Police Department (NPD), as well as the City of Neenah, following the fatal shooting of her husband, Michael Funk. The incident occurred on December 5, 2015, when Brian Flatoff took Funk and others hostage at a motorcycle shop. After Funk escaped, he was mistakenly shot by NPD officers who believed he was Flatoff. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that the officers' actions were not objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that they were protected by qualified immunity. The Seventh Circuit Court affirmed this decision, emphasizing that the qualified immunity issue was decisive. During the hostage situation, officers were informed of Flatoff's threats and set up a perimeter around the shop. Despite the tense circumstances, they attempted to rescue the hostages by entering the shop, during which Funk was shot as Flatoff fired at the responding officers.

A hasty police team engaged in gunfire during a brief encounter before retreating within one minute. Only four team members entered a shop, and after retreating, Officers Hoffer and Ross positioned themselves in an alley, while Lieutenants O’Bre, Thompson, and Officer Kuffel moved to a nearby parking lot. Officer Hoffer suspected an ambush and noted the absence of hostages. Shortly after the retreat, Flatoff instructed Funk to close a rear door and threatened him if he attempted to escape. Funk, however, fled and was shot at by Flatoff. Officers Hoffer and Ross, positioned in the alley, witnessed Funk armed with a handgun. As he ran across the alley, the officers shot at him, with Hoffer firing eight shots and Ross firing eleven, resulting in Funk’s death. Funk's wife filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force, battery, and wrongful death in Wisconsin. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding the officers' use of force was not objectively unreasonable and entitled them to qualified immunity for not violating a clearly established right. The court dismissed state law claims without prejudice. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute over material facts, and courts review such decisions de novo, considering all factual disputes in favor of the non-moving party. Qualified immunity protects officials unless their actions violate established rights known to a reasonable person.

Qualified immunity allows government officials to make reasonable but mistaken judgments regarding ambiguous legal issues. To determine if an official qualifies for this immunity, two criteria are assessed: (1) whether a statutory or constitutional right was violated, and (2) whether that right was "clearly established" at the time of the conduct in question. The choice of which criterion to evaluate first is at the discretion of the court; however, if the second criterion is decisive, it is prioritized. A right is considered "clearly established" if it is evident that a reasonable official would recognize that their actions violate that right. The Supreme Court has clarified that proving a clearly established right does not necessitate a directly applicable case, but rather that existing legal precedent must have made the issue clear beyond debate. Qualified immunity protects all but those officials who are plainly incompetent or knowingly violate the law.

The Supreme Court has also advised against defining clearly established law in overly general terms, particularly in Fourth Amendment cases concerning excessive force, where the application of law can be context-sensitive. Specificity is crucial, as excessive force determinations rely heavily on the unique facts of each case. Officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless there is precedent that directly addresses the specific facts involved.

General legal principles can still provide adequate warning to officers. Significant cases such as Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor have established parameters for assessing the use of excessive and deadly force, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of the specific circumstances surrounding an incident. However, these cases alone do not establish clear law applicable to all situations unless the case is obvious. Mason-Funk argues that existing case law should have alerted Officers Hoffer and Ross that their actions were unconstitutional, asserting that they had a duty to protect innocents during hostage situations, that Funk's behavior did not pose an imminent threat justifying deadly force, and that a warning was required before the use of deadly force, barring extraordinary circumstances.

The examination of Supreme Court and Circuit precedent establishes whether a right was clearly defined at the time of the alleged violation. Mason-Funk references Garner, which states that deadly force is permissible only when a suspect poses an imminent threat and that warnings should be given if feasible. However, Mason-Funk acknowledges that Garner alone does not create clear precedent for the situation at hand. 

Supporting Garner's principles, Mason-Funk cites cases where courts denied qualified immunity due to excessive use of deadly force against unthreatening armed individuals. In Weinmann v. McClone, it was determined that a suicidal person with a gun, who did not threaten officers, had a right to be free from deadly force. The Fourth Circuit in Cooper v. Sheehan emphasized that mere possession of a firearm does not justify deadly force if the individual poses no threat. The Fifth Circuit in Baker v. Putnal also declined qualified immunity for deadly force used against an armed individual who did not make threatening movements.

Mason-Funk argues that Officers Hoffer and Ross should have distinguished between innocents and suspects in a hostage situation, citing Idaho v. Horiuchi, which involved a mistaken killing during a hostage standoff. However, since that opinion was vacated, it cannot establish any constitutional right. Furthermore, district court opinions cited by Mason-Funk lack the weight of precedent needed to clarify constitutional rights.

No existing precedent directly addresses the unique circumstances faced by Officers Hoffer and Ross. The context of an active hostage situation, alongside threats and gunfire from the hostage-taker, presented a significant threat that distinguishes this case from the precedents cited. Within a short period, the officers were shot at and misidentified Funk as a threat, which justified their use of deadly force. Consequently, they were not on notice that their actions violated any clearly established right, leading to a conclusion that they are entitled to qualified immunity. The district court's summary judgment in favor of the Defendants is affirmed.