Brown v. Burmaster – Do It For The Caselaw

Holding: The Fifth Circuit affirmed the grant of qualified immunity to the officer but reversed the judgment against the City due to irreconcilable jury findings on causation and liability.
Standard: Qualified immunity two-prong test; municipal liability causation requirement
Vote: Panel Decision
Practical effect: The judgment for Officer Burmaster stands, shielding him from liability. The judgment against the City is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial specifically on the issue of municipal liability.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict granting qualified immunity to a police officer who shot a puppy but reversed a judgment holding the City of New Orleans liable. The court held that the jury's findings on municipal liability were irreconcilable because they found the City liable while simultaneously finding no causal link between City policy and the death.

Background

In April two thousand twenty-one, Officer Derrick Burmaster responded to a disturbance at the home of Derek Brown and Julia Barecki-Brown in New Orleans. After hearing a dog bark, Burmaster fired three shots, killing a sixteen-week-old puppy named Apollo. A jury found that Burmaster violated the Fourth Amendment but granted him qualified immunity. The same jury found that no City policy caused the death yet held the City liable for the violation.

The court’s reasoning

The court explained that qualified immunity divides labor between judge and jury: the court identifies clearly established law, and the jury resolves disputed facts. The district court properly submitted the immunity question to the jury because factual disputes precluded summary judgment. Regarding the City, the court found the verdict irreconcilable. The jury found the City liable for inadequate training or supervision but also found that no City policy caused the death. Because municipal liability requires both culpability and causation, these findings cannot stand together.

A jury cannot reject the premise yet impose the consequence. It cannot find in one breath that no City policy caused Apollo’s death and demand in the next that the City answer for it.

Brown v. Burmaster, 25-30541 (5th Cir. July 14, 2026)

What it means going forward

The judgment for Officer Burmaster stands, shielding him from liability. The judgment against the City is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial specifically on the issue of municipal liability.