By Lee Dryden
BridgeTower Media Newswires
DETROIT-A ruling for a Detroit police officer whose gun discharged while she was attempting to collect a personal debt was affirmed by a 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel.
In Morris v. City of Detroit, the appeals court panel agreed with U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Judge Avern Cohn's granting of summary judgment to defendants Jennifer Lee Adams and the City of Detroit.
The courts agreed that Adams acted only in a personal capacity during the incident and was not acting under color of state law.
The appeals court opinion was written by Senior Judge Gilbert S. Merritt, joined by Senior Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey and Judge Richard Allen Griffin.
The case
The defendants disputed plaintiffs' account of the facts, but conceded the facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs for purposes of summary judgment. The district court found the following "undisputed" facts as stated by plaintiffs, according to the appeals court opinion.
On June 20, 2017, Adams clocked out and left work to go to the plaintiffs' house at about 4:30 p.m., even though she was scheduled to work until 6 p.m. Adams knocked aggressively on the door.
When plaintiff Keri-Yakei Morris opened the door, Adams placed her foot in the door so Morris could not close it. Adams entered the house and began questioning Morris about repayment of a $300 personal loan, according to the opinion.
"Adams became hostile, pointing her finger in Morris' face and initiating a physical confrontation during which Morris sprayed Adams in the face with mace. After being sprayed with mace, Adams drew her gun and fired a shot. The bullet did not hit Morris," the opinion stated.
During the confrontation, plaintiff Calvin Galloway began descending the stairs. Adams threatened physical harm if he came downstairs, the opinion stated. Galloway did not intervene, but the bullet fired by Adams grazed him in the next room.
Adams left the home after the gun discharged. Criminal charges were brought against Adams in state court, but she was acquitted because the court found that Morris had lied to the court about the incident, according to the opinion.
Adams also was suspended after an internal investigation determined that she violated various police department policies and procedures.
"The internal investigation found that, at the time of the incident, Adams was not in police uniform. However, she was wearing her badge, had a waistband holster that displayed her department-issued gun, and had her department-issued handcuffs," the opinion stated.
The investigation also determined that Adams was technically "on duty" when she clocked out and went to plaintiffs' home because she was scheduled to work until 6 p.m.
Plaintiffs filed a complaint in state court, which defendants removed to federal court, alleging violations of the Fourth and 14th Amendments based on claims of wrongful seizure and excessive force. They requested damages of $1 million, along with costs and attorney fees.
The district court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.
Sixth Circuit analysis
The opinion stated that the issue in dispute is whether Adams was "acting under color of state law" when she went to plaintiffs' home and discharged her revolver. The plaintiffs argued that Adams was "acting under color of law because she had her department-issued badge, service revolver and handcuffs, and she was on duty because her shift did not end until 6:00 pm."
Citing Stengel v. Belcher (1975), which quotes Johnson v. Hackett (1968), the panel stated, "It is the nature of the act performed, not the clothing of the actor or even the status of being on duty, or off duty, which determines whether the officer has acted under color of law."
"The sole purpose for Adams being at Morris' house was to collect a personal debt of $300," the opinion stated. "Adams did not purport to be conducting police-related business, nor did she attempt to use her status as a police officer advantageously during the altercation. The fact that Adams used her department-issued weapon during a private dispute is not enough to establish she was acting under color of law."
"Plaintiffs' argument against Adams is based entirely on the fact that Adams had department-issued equipment with her, including her badge and service revolver, and the fact that she was technically on duty, even though she had clocked out for the day. The purely private altercation between Morris and Adams does not possess the necessary indicia of authority to find that Adams was acting under color of law."
The plaintiffs contended that the city should be held liable for Adams' actions because "it failed to properly train and supervise Adams, and that it permits officers to carry guns when off duty."
"Plaintiffs' Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims require Adams to be a state actor, which in turn requires her to have acted under color of law. However, as discussed above, Adams was not acting under color of law," the opinion stated. "Consequently, the City cannot be liable for Adams' personal actions not taken under color of state law, and plaintiffs' claims against the City fail."
The panel also noted that plaintiffs challenged the reasonableness of the city's policies that permit off-duty officers to carry state-issued firearms, but federal law does not "authorize municipal liability based on the purely private actions of an officer without an underlying constitutional claim."
Published: Tue, Jan 07, 2020
