Plaintiff Cory Driscoll, who suffers from schizoaffective and bipolar disorders, was encountered by Deputy Jennifer Smiley at a county park after visitors called dispatch regarding his erratic behavior, including making strange noises and drinking from a jug. Dispatch informed the deputy that Driscoll was running with a water jug and might have a lighter in his car, but explicitly stated he was not armed or dangerous. Upon arrival, Deputy Smiley ordered Driscoll to drop the jug and get on the ground. After a tense three-minute encounter where Driscoll complied with some commands but refused others, Deputy Smiley shot him in the abdomen when he stepped toward her, claiming he was drinking gasoline. Driscoll survived but suffered significant injuries, including the loss of a kidney. The district court denied Deputy Smiley's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, allowing Driscoll's Fourth Amendment excessive force claim to proceed to trial.
The court analyzed the excessive force claim under the objective reasonableness standard set forth in Graham v. Connor and Barnes v. Felix, evaluating the totality of the circumstances. The court found that Deputy Smiley's use of deadly force was unreasonable because she was responding to a non-emergency welfare check with no indication of criminal activity or weapons. The court emphasized that Driscoll was unarmed, his hands were visible and empty, and there was no objective evidence that he posed a threat of serious physical harm. Specifically, the court rejected the deputy's assertion that she reasonably believed Driscoll was drinking gasoline, noting that no one smelled gasoline, Driscoll drank from the jug without adverse reaction, and the only evidence was his ambiguous statement which the district court found to be inquisitory rather than declarative. The court further held that Driscoll's diminished capacity due to a mental health episode was evident, and the deputy had an obligation to consider this when responding. Regarding qualified immunity, the court determined that the right to be free from deadly force against an unarmed, non-dangerous person was clearly established. The court cited Tennessee v. Garner and previous Sixth Circuit cases like Martin v. City of Broadview Heights to conclude that the violation was 'obvious' and did not require a factually identical precedent to put a reasonable officer on notice.
The decision affirms that the denial of qualified immunity stands, meaning Deputy Smiley must proceed to trial on the Fourth Amendment excessive force claim and related state-law claims. The ruling clarifies that officers cannot rely on subjective fears or uncorroborated claims of dangerousness (such as the presence of gasoline) to justify deadly force against an unarmed individual exhibiting signs of mental instability. It reinforces that the 'obvious case' exception to qualified immunity applies when an officer uses deadly force against a non-dangerous, unarmed suspect, even if the suspect is non-compliant or erratic.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download