- The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a Greenville police officer had qualified immunity protecting him against portions of a federal lawsuit filed in connection with a fatal 2019 shooting.
- The decision reverses a trial judge who had rejected officer David Johnson's immunity claims.
- The family of Sean Michael Rambert Jr. can continue pursuing a suit against Greenville and Johnson, except for claims that are barred by Johnson's qualified immunity.
A federal Appeals Court has ruled that Greenville police officer David Johnson had qualified immunity that protected him against a lawsuit tied to a fatal shooting in 2019. The decision reverses a trial judge, who had rejected Johnson’s immunity claims.
A unanimous 4th Circuit Court of Appeals panel issued a decision Friday that allows the family of Sean Michael Rambert Jr. to continue pursuing its lawsuit against Johnson and the city. But the Ramberts cannot proceed with the portion of the suit that butts up against Johnson’s qualified immunity.
“We hold that an officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a claim that his use of deadly force violated the Fourth Amendment when he fired at a suspect of a potentially violent crime who, despite repeated commands, charged the officer at full speed and advanced to close proximity to the officer,” wrote Judge Marvin Quattlebsum.” Such conduct was not objectively unreasonable and, even if it was, did not violate clearly established law.”
Qualified immunity “shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct,” Quattlebaum wrote.
The suit stemmed from a July 2019 incident. An “elderly couple” reported a breaking-and-entering in progress about 4 a.m. at their Greenville home. Johnson arrived before other officers at the scene.
He parked his car and started walking up the sidewalk toward the house. “Johnson then heard a loud yell of a male voice. In response, he began running toward the sound and activated his body camera,” Quattlebaum wrote.
The 4th Circuit opinion offers time-stamped descriptions of the actions from 4:09-4:10 a.m.
“[T]he loud yelling continued. No words were discernable, just loud screaming. Johnson drew his weapon,” Quattlebaum wrote. “[H]e issued the first of eight commands to ‘get on the ground.’ Although, due to the darkness, Rambert is not yet visible on the video, Johnson spoke into his radio to alert the dispatcher … that ‘I’ve got one running at me.’”
Johnson’s body camera video shows Rambert “running at Johnson while continuing to yell indecipherably,” the court opinion continied. “One second later, … Rambert had closed to within a short distance of Johnson. By this time, Johnson retreated from the sidewalk into the street, which was better lit by a streetlight.”
“As Rambert continued to run at him and yell loudly, Johnson fired three shots at Rambert and then another almost immediately after that,” Quattlebaum wrote. “Rambert fell forward to the ground. About the same time, Johnson tripped and fell on his back.”
While Johnson was on the ground, “Rambert was in front of him, only a few feet away, trying to get up and continuing to yell. Rambert rose to his hands and knees and then to a standing position and attempted to advance towards Johnson,” Quattlebaum wrote.
“Johnson, still on the ground, fired four more shots at Rambert.” Roughly 20 seconds later, “Johnson and Rambert were still on the ground only a few feet away from each other. … [B]oth Johnson and Rambert were trying to get to their feet. As Rambert tried to use his elbow to rise up, Johnson fired two more shots. The last shot knocked Rambert on his back from a sitting position,” the Appeals Court opinion explained.
After Johnson climbed to his feet, “[h]e trained his gun on Rambert, who had rolled over on the ground with blood around him. … Johnson began backing away from Rambert then yelled, ‘show me your hands.’ He reloaded his weapon but did not shoot. He also radioed for EMS,” Quattlebaum wrote.
“Rambert rolled over and tried again to get up, using his hands and knees to pull himself up,” the court opinion continued. “Johnson yelled again at Rambert to ‘get on the ground right now!’ But Rambert still got up and took a few more steps toward Johnson before falling on the ground again. Johnson did not shoot in response to this movement.”
“Rambert collapsed at 4:10:12 but continued to try to get up. At 4:10:25, Rambert sat up briefly before falling backwards and continuing to roll on the ground. At that point, other officers arrived on the scene. Rambert later died from the gunshot wounds,” Quattlebaum wrote.
US District Judge Louise Flanagan rejected Johnson’s immunity defense. She determined that “a reasonable officer could have concluded that Rambert’s mental illness was the cause of the conduct.” Flanagan added that the “final uses of deadly force are ones which a reasonable juror could conclude were excessive.”
Appellate judges disagreed. “To be sure, Rambert had the right under the Fourth Amendment to be free from excessive force. But an officer’s use of deadly force in response to an obvious, serious and immediate threat to his safety is not excessive,” Quattlebaum wrote. “Even construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Ramberts, Rambert posed an obvious, serious and immediate threat to Johnson. At the time of each of Johnson’s shots, a reasonable officer would have viewed that threat as continuing. As a result, the force Johnson used was not excessive, and his conduct was not objectively unreasonable.”
Judges Stephanie Thacker and William Traxler joined Quattlebaum’s opinion.