Banks v. Hawkins, No. 19-3092 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
After defendant, a police officer, shot plaintiff in the course of investigating a potential domestic disturbance, plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's excessive force claim, agreeing with the district court that genuine issues of material fact precluded a grant of qualified immunity. Construing the disputed record in plaintiff's favor, the court concluded that a jury could conclude that no reasonable officer would have thought deadly force was necessary in that moment to protect plaintiff's wife from imminent danger. Furthermore, plaintiff's demeanor and conduct are in dispute. In this case, defendant opened the door and instantaneously shot plaintiff. Therefore, under these circumstances, no reasonable officer would have believed that he had probable cause to use deadly force. Furthermore, plaintiff's right to be free from excessive force under these circumstances was also clearly established at the time.
Court Description: [Kelly, Author, with Wollman and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - Civil Rights - qualified immunity. Denial of qualified immunity to police officer who shot Banks in course of investigating potential domestic disturbance is affirmed. Construing the disputed record in Banks's favor, no reasonable officer would have thought deadly force was necessary to protect Vanessa Banks from imminent danger; officer's belief that he was about to be attacked was unreasonable; shooting Banks the instant the door was open was objectively unreasonable; no reasonable officer would have believed he was under attack; and thus no reasonable officer would have believed he had probable cause to use deadly force. Right to be free from excessive force was clearly established. Judge Stras dissents.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.