Background
In December two thousand twenty-one, officers responded to a narcotics location at a Detroit gas station. They encountered Jamal Ward, who had a partially concealed handgun and no license. When ordered to keep his hands up, Ward resisted, pulled out the weapon, and ran toward the exit. Officer Thompson fired twice, missing Ward. Officer Brotzke, hearing shots and seeing Ward run with a gun, fired four shots as Ward dropped the weapon. Ward was struck four times but survived and sued the officers for excessive force.
The court’s reasoning
The court analyzed whether the officers seized the plaintiff under the Fourth Amendment. It held that Officer Thompson did not seize Ward because his shots missed and did not terminate Ward’s freedom of movement, distinguishing prior precedent where missed shots led to voluntary submission. The court found Officer Brotzke did seize Ward by shooting him. Under the Graham factors, the court determined the force was reasonable because Ward was committing a felony, actively resisting arrest, and posed an immediate threat. The court concluded Brotzke reasonably believed Ward still had the gun. The court also affirmed state law immunity, finding the officers acted in good faith.
What it means going forward
The ruling clarifies that missing shots at a fleeing suspect do not constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment unless they cause the suspect to submit or are restrained. It reinforces that officers are protected by qualified immunity when making split-second decisions based on a reasonable belief of an immediate threat.