Order - MSJ-3

Case 3:11-cv-00061-DHB-BKE Document 190 Filed 08/18/14 Page 1 of 44
i.tLIu
IN
U . Si.] I Si R ; C TC O
rl,r-illliSri
lllV
THE IJNITED STATES DISTRICT

COT'RT FOR
SOUTHERN DISTRICT
OF GEORGIA
DI'BLIN DIVISION
Z0ilAUCIB Pft I'
clrnhcAl
s 0 ,0 t s T0.F0
and
LENAWTLLIAMS, individually
as administrator
of the Estate
of Mefvin WiI I iams, Deceased,
Dlrinfif
cv 311-061
V.
T t r F F E R Vl t r A T .
crnacitv
as ^
rhA
a i r r -r l i
vn Lf
in hi s individual
P.l ice Of f i"cer oI
F u. ;J1L c f
u
nrlhl
t't--'rAv
ih
uual
Police
as Ch.e
j 1- of
F . Fe ^f
nrL\- r n -
r:a^rdi
anrl
of
!-o.Uo\,
! Ly
rhe Ciry
of
IITTY OF EAST
Defendants.
ORDER
Presently
fnr
(rrmm:rrr
relevant
pending
Trrri/"fmanr
before
lln^n
the
Court
rF\riFr^r
case Law, and the
.\f
evidence
th6
of
GRAI.ITEDfN PART and DENIED IN PART f or
I.
A.
FactuaL
This
Williams
case
is
DefendanLS' Motion
ynar! r
f i oLcr ,s J
record,
hriafc
t-h-
che motion
rs
[he f o-L-Lowing reasons.
BACKGROUND
Backaround
arlses
("Wi11iams")
from
the
by Jeffery
fethaf
Deal
shootinq
("Deal'),
of
Melvin
an employee of
the
-ra'fi.
cne
q rL n
n
vt/
ancl
Pofice
DubIin
East
mounred on
captured
Dea]'s
vehicl e,
shouLd adopt
court
.4icroarrd
f r.'i
where -
doctored,
Harris,
ra(aranaa
312,
the
Road,
at
is
wlth
video
r-onrr:di
r^rcd"
no indication
that
dlstorts
nraqenl
L J
v!uJe,.
of
camera
district
and
evidence
h\/
\./ -i -a:la
t r
t-h.c, -
the
'l'h,rc
fa-j-rral
video
v.ideo was
facts.
the
(2007)
378-81
n.r-in^
dashboard
i'rdome-f -
Scotl- v.
far
af
n
v !f
Jur.u.'q!li
evidence
isofated
fL^
in
its
ar
a.m.
or
Activation
-P 4-! * '^.sû , . r i -
Dashboard
of
a car
fail
catnera
t.o stop
at
BoaE Ramp Road and Buckeye
of
shortfy
(Doc. No. L20, Deal- Dep. at
Buckeye Road at
to
intersection
the
9:00
Prior
Dea1, he observed
to
According
sign
by
s n m " r ar v
$r-lcerlrr
undisputed
Events
video
srop
Ar
following
?010
14-
video
on
otherwise
a.rrrri
with
own section.
or
U.S.
lha
inc.ident
there
altered,
550
:ro
Mav
consistent
facts
rh^r
as here
on
al-a-r-a*inn
was
incidenr
('EDPD"),
Department
thereafter
I55,
151-52,
.r mArked no'.r:e
on
L'l2.)
w e l - ic l e
the Anba Food Mart.2
May I4,
(rO.
At
that
one block
at
151.)
2A1A.
time,
north
on
williams
The Court notes here that the record was not ccmp;eled , L. e, ,
p-(jnci p o oeposj t ions were noL taken and keV ev-oence wqs oot produced,
a vlrtuafly
frivolous
appea.L by Defendants
of
discovery
until
af:er
issues.
:
4
T l -- o u , g h o u r - t h j s
rar-r j..1a_
Laa.linos
a..l
-
subsecL-Loo, the
Courr
- dl<f^..ac.
:n.r-virn:f
-qq"7
-hFr
I
..
rr-ir.t
L6kes
c^^
-.-
jud-Lc;aI
cLah-r
"^r I i-a],,
rrlkF
noLice
oI
120
nir-ial
t rrrF.l
(Id.
Deal.
nor
(Id.
at
c/-\r-ih
(ld.
/--
Qn:d
turning
contjnued
Deal
d-i\/../-r
n a - av - l! er ! l4
\,rlillrarrs
on
(Id.
nF:l
at
as
Doc. No.
I25,
narr:c^
h,il
li:me
-nntinued
naa-
, ^ ' r î - h
Tarp
/no:l
good vanrage
12 *GBI
Ex.
n6^
point
!urn
[,rAq aw:v
'1
rr
from
he apparently
(Id.
E?
at
on
f rom
156.)
paral-IeI
Lo
Whife
7 5 6 - 5 ' 1. )
\ / ce qau Y] t]r o
L hr
on
at
rr'..nnse
reached
B:45
to
..-.1
l-hF
r.rrf
r- h. rû, !^_Lr-9 t _ L
(Id.
Lane.
either
(Id.;
Roberson.3
Bur-keve
-n-6* :- l
Derriso
ar
between Buckeye and
righc
Interview"
SOUth
Sj- rpeL.
Deaf saw Wiffiams
162-63.)
or
block
simultaneously
boch
perpendicular
157-58,
souch on Marion
(rd.
dJ-d
dispaccn.
n:la\/
and
:nn^-enll
they
runs
conrjnue
^-
.nj-rr
Road
Street.
trt
which
Roberson Lane,
n.ini--
call
v!
-afr
rrned
f rom
r r r : ! ,v . l ir n
r Yn
A.Fiar
Buckeye
on Marion
vehicle
triilliams's
-h:-
or
onto Marion SLreer.
right
to
yer
Marion.
sjrens
168-69. )
souLh
rouLe
Williams/ s
or
^$r^\/
him, but
When Deal reached Daley ScreeL,
154. )
at
saw Williams
of
159-60,
Rrrr-i.arre
qnad
an.l
DeaI acce-lerated after
emergency lighrs
L52-55,
Qoad
Rrrr:Leve
L52, 154.)
at
on hjs
turn
.\nr.,
lsouth)
rr ohl-
i r r r' or v rv J
hcinn
ac
- i !oY h
r
rrL
!
rs .uer :kr ror n
!LrrrY
h
I r6e
At
9:15.)
hr,'
vj
'.'-,1^
rr-',a
W(fLI-LL.lttdve
'1
63. )
Deal
n o t - c e o f x a c L e r s o I g e o g r a p \ y p L r s u a n L L o F e d e r a . I R L r - L eo I E v i d e n c e 2 0 1 ) ;
e. q. , United States v. Proch, 637 F.3d 1262, 1266 (11th Cir. 2011) (taking
'..
r ^-
^F
fha
e
m:n
3 This
of
rL-
rar
'-L
/qaa
factuaf
^
i!
LA4: -,ar.'l
is
inveJLed
n6: I nan
I v
1
issue
is
ixunaterial
!./iLh
.r
9q
lhe
\
e.
.
r-La..n^c'
^/
r^r
, |
^r
rOeO
'r '
nrrl.eeded
down Derri,so Lane and turned
(Id.
around.
164-
at
68. )
2.
At
R
u u l! ,-\ 1
l ] !" ^ \ / a
on Derriso
fot
Rnad-
ancl
!\vqv/
-rrrnod
nrrl lari
rl r -s -q -u n :I ^ -i 9
pu-l-leo behind
9 : O 6 :0 1 t o
Lane,
..\rf h
and
Loward Williams
rurned
holster,
(Id.
at
drove
about
-LUU yaros
aDour
turned
l{i-liams's
his
on
vehic.Le in
away.
emergency
rhe
hj-s vehicle
AS
vehicle
jmmediatel v
uea l
Ijghts
orove
as
he
(Video aL
of Wlfflams's
ran toward the driver-side

Much of
ensuing
the
and, wlLh his
scene is
(ld.
ar
9:06:36
to
the
car.
Don'r
get
.,---wrlJrrg
toward
Rner'l
o.riveway.
the dashboard camera, buL Lhe audio
several
200 feet
of
9: O5:34. )
9:06:35.)
Iâînq
yard
the
arrnkcrra
nr
view of
t lân
in
o"r R
kerze Road and
u s !r^ r
s J- U
Deaf immediateLy exited

his
around
/-^-i-hl
lc'-
--''_
- l.r _
i_r r.- e w
ay
:_
intn
Videoa
- L e ft . o n t o B u c k e y e R o a d , W i l l i a m s ' s
soon as DeaI turned

...i^:r-r^
Deal
d.fl.r
9:06:01
residential
canera
Dashboard
t^
seconds
. - . r- r . - y v u .
9:07:00. )
out
<o|nris
.an-r,re
of
che car
srruggfe,
naal
is
Deal jmmedjately
on a traffic
of
nhvsir-al
Williams
a yn yn oa lrsF' n
o
r Lf r y l \ r
vehlcle.
outslde
sLjll
stop."
"Get in
The audio
qr rtrfln1a.
--).^
the
captured.
sLated,
excfaimed:
t r.'r --
hano on
At-.eI
"Whac is
-
--1io
a The recordinq
from the dashboard camera on Deal's vehlcle
is filed
(doc. no, I25, ex. 5) and will
herelnafter
be cited as
as a ccr,pact disc
tine
narkers.
As a resuft
of ho!.i the dashboard
"Video" with applicable
c a - ro r a . s p r o g r a n r n e d , t h e s a v F o p o r L - o n o r L h e v - o e o o e g i r s ! h ' r E y s e c o n d s
(Deaf Dep. at 157/ 164,)
of the emergency lights.
before activation
"Man,
wnaL
qr lrr.r'l
t r AJ .
.o.l-i-:ecl
.i
theiz
-^r
around
Ai-
\ ^ rl l r i : m q
DeaI's
view
the
to
f .
of
-a
!u
head.5
9:06:37
nl
lift
immediacely
head off
his
Someone -
ground. "
'
che
ro
video
DeaI
9 t O 1: 0 6 t o
rrncler
o-
and
threw
Deal
shot,
and
9:07:05. )
qer-nndq
fhirf
at
Soon
Dea.I then
9 : 07 : 04 . )
(Id.
Deaf/
AS
Deal.
fired
backed
facing
Still
at
landed
immediately
toward
at
o
- auhe hp i r nL . t Y
Y.
v-
lT.l
The
aI
radioed
the
dispatch.6
ground.
later
identified
Wiffiams
DeaI staLed,
as
KeiLh
st ruggled
"Stay
on rhe
Patterson,
an
''F-nF-nv-fr
rarf. r"r r
ane
were kno-'ked o:f
of f's
r^rr i 'r:tsI
at the scene and observed
an abrasion
or
(Doc. No, 46, Ex.3
at 66-67, 91,)
t\e
b-LLon
L,
"f-rarne Alv"nce"
reved.Ls LhoL Dea-'s
sLnglasses
l-a q ros-a
found
of
a br.oken set
con!usion
above Deal's
-l,a,,F
Sr
liro
camera.
(Id.
body near his
his
i,u-!!r-Y
Deal
forward,
h
- r ru rt rne r- r- tl' ^
u^.r
9:07:05. )
to
Deal
of
camera.
dashboard
of
Fnrwa-rJ
ground.
laste.l
f inhl-
so r^dS
<l inhl- lrr
Williams
the
step
ha
Lv
qtFnnad
advanced a
fell
-ha
JrrY:tLry
commanded, "Gec on che ground!"
loudly
'
the
of
Da:l
torso.
ancl 'hp.
narrsed
Williams
D,
view
ra.l
uyrJluruu
uooer
the
IJueu!g
again:
excfaimed
rr-
Pri e'l
iima
Fnna^
'LJ
punch at
as Wiflians
4-o
the
l-hrr
r -.nq
his
away and ouL of
revi-w,
enter
rr.r .
c - L o s e - fi s t e d
to
you l "
with
borh hands on the holsLer-side
IJ!-Lqjcrrltt/
antr
Williams
(Id.)
hofh
O
. n 1 't .nw1t .
r.w
over wirh
lfeal
wrong
is
'fhen.
\f
*l0l B Buckeye. "
staLed
dispatch,
informs
Hi.i
9:07:20).
sunglasses
left
eye.
d-spaLch:
orl:
"I
rsL
shoL
one.
1018 BLckeye,
4-o
ar-.-kdvF
right
lV'.jF.
here,
ar
yelled
"I'm
aII
eye-wiLness
responded,
you."
thank
roward
right,
--^'.--r
spEdr\
- . r r^ - - - ^ r ^
DeaI entered
the
(Id.
trunk.
haoan
to
ccased
Officers
continued
-horr
-q
DLau^f
u
chnnrinrr
h
v l' r
rhc
r ho
rn
(Id.
DeaL's
Statements
.i:ehl_r.\,a-.1
ThirA
:rAr-
to
9:09:45
rha
f ,f. 'up
L
jt-nhee
'at
:'tlcr\/ipwed
innidanl-
!uyv!
GRT
open
and
nrr-qe
On
him, ?
and the
camera
to
9:49:00. )
5LUl-|r
q
S .cpennce .
nn
rdaht
incLdenL.d
the
Scr-.rnzl
hrz
it
resuscitate
--a!!-LL
arrirrin.'r
Lo
f ra.re.
officers
frnrl
regarding
mr rrnnhn-es
a,r'TF-a
j-n
Lhe scene/
at
^ i -ecl
rz e
u ^xrn
" l
w^s
vorf
Other
rrnal'le
statements
of f ir:erq
-.)eal
i*r-idcnf
9:09:44.)
investigace
off.
nj-hcr
1 O rnr l S
-l L- ai . -. L
conC Lnued
Deal
v/ 1
u ,| -
attempted
turned
!rLeyn
Le
u -a! rs e
- ld
^^l
-i n. l^c- -a- p^ iaf C . L f ' a L- re- O
,
movino.
,^rpro
.,."-I
to
Wilfiams
at
PuL your hands ouL."
n
er-i:ll\,
uu!-faff
9:07:.06 to
Deal has made several

F
firearm
Yes sjr,
Wjll jams's car and attempred to
unsuccessfuffy
and
was eventually
at
arrivo
Williams
his
1rla.arlrr
T
r -L
- u^-.91r n
r h
a p p e ar s r h a r
F . l v ' sl
pointing
urre
and
!-lLrPaLLrri
wILrl
Thank you, brother.
on the ground
r ^ r ' il l i . m <
vY-L-Lr-*...-
n nOi n- rt -I l L r
p
tnaI'
Buckeye Road, and DeaI
from
man.
Deaf continued
and commanded: "Stay

r^\r I '
Deal
!r9rrt,
aS
q
d
aA
r rI ^vru
C
dn
p fCr u
j-he
.Tarr',
rho
r iu:_rt.
u
'
.l^\r
of
.T^naS.
nf
t;^
'- The autopsy report revea.led that Lhe buLlet p.ierced Wifliams's
left
(Doc, No. 12f,
l-ung, and thus caused his death.
lung, heart,
and right
on Williams's
and abrasions
Ex. 1?. )
There !.rere also minor contusions
consistent
with
force
1egs,
and cheek,
m.inor blunt
fingers,
wrist/
inl..
a<
e'
rr)
.a.l
6 Here, the
camera Dortion of
.lirri
nd
fna
ridnr
Court focuses
the incident.
rl^
on what Deal has stated
regarding
the
off-
rttu_LL,lctlL.
r'lan.rea.t
raa^l
vi
n^
A F fL UFr r
nic
ca:r
to
flee.
.\nan
(Video
GBI Interview
see rhar
Dep. at
i-ha
at
WiIIiams
not
did
Iali l l i rm<
at
208,
c r! r sav !hu vh e r l
Y
'
tq
rr
2I0,
nrrrin^
to
t/r
at
1-r'ad
ard
na:
to
mnmcnt
Video
/]i<^^,,arr/
/qaa
of
225;
tdilliarns
irrmn
A6^f
t-ra-.
After
of
Wiffiams.
Fv
ger
^rrl-
fn
r'
in
.\l-\F\/
nrrch
:e
if
Deal could
car,
.
9:06:45.)
hSgk
i.
(Dea1
hands.
./-\mman,,l
into
n-iânf
:n.--dF,-r-
thF
9:11:50;
Dea.Lrushed toward
the
to
^r^.1'.6d
to
58.)
his
IemOVe
r' .' r-: -c , r -n-nn
i 9
ha
9:11:40
l- hF
him
WiIliamS
SaW
video,
9:06:35
n6Tan/i-nrc
n5n
favor
9zI0:24,
As shown on lhe
l^'ri
in
have a weapon in
commanded him
rr
i ^-i
declaration.
1l-:00,' DeaI Dep. at
Wi11 iams and

nnl
:nd
9:10:00
146.)
I39,
,,1.\-r
9:40 to
at
sworn
f h6
7 - r' Jr 1 7 4 1 . 7 a , 7 n a a l
i-ha
ys
holt
iLasr !
the fol,Lowing.
'rt^
n r tl + +I i n o
rr!
a- fr
and inconsistencies
I i -l-a
sraremenLS reveal
Deal's
y" ^s -a- r-
submitted
:n.l
-^nf
-.,^
Lw\J
-l--^.,crulru L
T ^^+
1.,
rrdJL-Lyt
D e aI
gave
/\ n, -a-:-l
na
"Jp.
Then/
Deal
Che vehiCl-e.I0
rI 6sh! /^vy- r
.a.^.
û idr a _
Ac u
,'-
I_ia- d y
is
he r^/rote a thorough,
two-page narrative
the incident,
in his
incident
( D e a l D e p . a r 6 ' 1, ' 1 ' l. )
Deal cl-aims he " ldoes notj
report.
know what
I
-l-F.
y6f
^-..rr.Fr
^y-
,16r
i",
..,L6r6
-F6
^yrî1af
(&1. at 6'l, 1I. )

Deaf does not recaff
report
is located.
!.rhat he wrote
(ld. a! 71. )
-n che ori.]ind.1 report.
Chjef LJecke and Dea explarned
LnaL soneone in Lhe EDPD may lave reroved -nformarion
fror rhe originareport
because the GBI instruct.ed
Chlef Luecke that it contained too much
(!gg Deal Dep. at 61-11, 15-11;
information
to be released to lhe media.
Doc. No. 122, Luecke Dep. at IOl , IA9-IIt
I75t 721-28, 13A.)
P .a i n r - L ff h a s f i . L e d a m o t - o n f o r s a n c L i o n s b a s e d u p o n E h e a l l e g e d
of evidence re.Lated to this
incident
reDort,
spoLiation
The Court defers
. rl
rn
-^
I-La n-ti.n
1t On other
iri-:--
-l-\/<i.Ft
115-16 & Ex.4;

factual dispute
+.
later
occasions,
.^rt^-r
Lime.
Deal
stated
that
6.,,r
Wilfiams
1-:2n
Doc, No. 129, DeaI DecL, S 9.)

in favor of Plaintiff.
f^
was the
11.,1:
The Court
tai-
first
-r6n
to
reso.Ives this
(Video at
to
9:10:00
Deal Dep. at
9:I1 :00;
case he was golng to
' r4 6
:nd
rv rr Yi vol voq r- o r r s
a
u
crc
rnrl
tNE
- ha\/
jn
DeaI
I nterVi
ew
I ad
wreqr
anrl
up,"
11:00
n-
ha.tk
times
wjLh
rLeiI
closed
to
9:16:50
Lo
over and fought
,k , n e e s t r ] - K e s . - -
uiirh
9:11:50,
"tied
at
oot
Lhe head a couple
rocnnnr{od
to
1cR r
got
9:17:05;
( I o. ;
DeaL Dep. at
prior
ano shooL-ng,
some poinr
Lo Ehe alEercaLjon
eirher
lrhen
o:n^.
wi r T i.n
hha|^ ]-e Saw the
fha
sl.n
driver
ex_Lr rne
(Deaf Dep. at
4;
GBI
DeaI recognized
Wilfiams.
153-54
& Ex.
Deal- testified
6:15.
8:00 to B:15.)
lhat
he thought
at 5:50 lo
Ar
"
.Lc-.v-d
vehicle,
Intervien
L ^ r :|
na.al
9:11:40
Video at
la
hit
to
9:16:50
(Deal Dep. aL
run."1r
or
knocked each other
Ac
I Td
Williams
feeL,
i
.Jr.1,1-.1
Fha
na.an
fI i ! : cJ r lr rh t -
Deal and Williams
13:00,)
rn
to fight
try
DeaI and Wil-Liams quickly
poinu,
rhac
9:11:50,
Deaf grabbed and pushed ['ii]liams
56.)
"jn
At
9:1-1:40 to
9:L0:24,
:anc
$,:e
LUI'LI
lF-aar-r
WAI
ANQ
r.
4,r-
s.r
t^
(Deal
LAAMS.
i./
k-r^w
Dep.
enoo
aL
:rd
^.i^.
L'l?.)
4ar_:-^c/
Prior
ro
ha-G'6en
tne
s-bjec-
record
criminal
and h'as a!.rare that
incident,
Deal had seen Will.iams's
(GBI
nas a convicted
feLon who had served ten years f:r prison.
Willjams
Deal was also aware that,
Interview
at 7:50 to 8:10; DeaL Dep. at 140.)
just a few lreeks before the subject
lncrdent,
h l i . L fi a m s h a d n a d e t h r e a t . s o f
(GBI Intervier,r at
physica.L violence
against another officer
of the EDFD.
D
e
p
.
D
e
p
.
a
t
1
3
6
3
7
;
Doc. No.46,
Ex.3
6:45 to 7:30; Deaf
at 140; Luecke
Deal had also p-1Ied ltilliams
over for tno prior
ar t?-BB. )
Lralfic
(Deaf
(Id. )
vloLa!ions.
nonvioLent.
-^1-i'i+\,
I^lilli:ms
/car
738, I4A-47,
r-irce- :nar
oI
/^-,,,
Lhese
dA^^
nn,
^^ma<r
at
however
aL
nanciAaran
141. )
cfaims
f^y
rri-arrTia'.
183),'
i ncidenLs
rr:c
a!
Deal
Additionally/
'.\.aerid:fa^
Dep.
6:15
the
rhi s
in
On
he
i.
l'hose
lras
\ri-1a^.a
occasions,
aware
fi
that
ya:rme
ldilliams
the
fhaFr
EDPD
-.. -
:^.i
! . r as
had
-.:uq
.li
18:55 to 20:15;
to 8:10,
Deal Dep. at 7A,
EDPD has no documentation
regarding
these
-- - rc-'lo\
r.i-hout
furrher
corroborarron
parLicu.Iar
L ime,
Lhis
cfaimeo
backgro:no
rac^1,/ind
I hD
.m.^.t- . t o n .
physical
with
ConsisLenL
lhe
a - IL e r c a L i o n ,
Dea.l' s
was
unilorm
pin
had been partially
Lorn on one panLs ]eg,
and a lapel
ripped
dirLy,
(Doc. No. 46, Ex. 3 ac 63, BI,
92. )
Deal aLso had abrdsions
clf.
and
( _ j L _ :a r o l , )
on his left
hano, wr-sL,
and above h's
left
contuslons
eye.
?
L wne C
.
II
l--1
a
s L fu v Lf r re
P .r vnv n t ^ , . t
na^l
^16^^^,,ni -..r ht nntzinq
/-ra-
qnrrrr
hrc
(cBI
Wif llams.
at
Tnterview
htrl-
was
!2:54
to
13:00. )
earror:
rri nlanr
14:30;
to
9:18:15;
it
9:07:05,
9:13:50,
our,
rta
l rr
toward
to
9:11:35,
9:18:15.)
97-103.)
nri
nr
Fn
f i ri
not
nn
h i e
9:17:l-0
to
knocked Wl1liams's
q^.-
:q
the
15:00;
2q
the
moment Deal
feet
away from
any
shot
Video at
At
issue
t/'lilli_ams
fethaf
to
DeaI has never
did
at
9:12:10
six
on to
rhe gun, backed away,
fired
14:30 to
Deaf
(GBI Interview
9:13:50,
-rhe-
Deal
was approximately
LhaL he
to hold
to
made
13:45 to
DeaL struggled
Somehow, Deaf
at
at
9:18:15;
9:13:40
him.
and
to
unsnapped.
Willlams.
9:1,1,:25 to
(Deal Dep. at
i mmaAi
at
(GBI Interview
9:17:10
weapon, he
bears
919.)
9:17:40
and, emerging with
toward
advancing
Wi-11iams.
to
Video
holster
(GBI Interview
9:12:30,
horster
rhe firearm
raised
started
the
firearm
iclnq
DeaL Decl,. tl 9.)
hanos off
and
rn.f
Deal's
92L2:1A to
and
firearm,
13:45
nc
2L'7-20; DeaI Decf.
Dep. at
his
icrki
at
Video
14:30;
grabbed
then
Williams
stated,
9:07:00
9:13:40
9:12:30,
at
fired
to
hj-s
WiLIiams.ll
and the
warn.ing to
video
WiIIiams
wa:nan
rr Adnrtced-y, Deal is "noL good wiLn esLimar:ing distances."

(Dea
occasions,
DeaI claimed to have shot tr^tri1I.iams
On previous
Dep. at 84.)
(GBI Interview
at 14:30 to 15:00; DeaI Dep. at
from a closer distance.
Plaintiff
use the most favorable
distance
for
91-98.)
The Court will
(i.e. the farthest distance) .
Patterson's
Keith
Keith
/n^^
was
Patterson
of
.a
r-a r
r,^ rt
see afso
Doc. No. 47,
4:30,
8:50
Lo
I P - e+ l - a r e . \ n
52-53,
Ex.
i na
nn rr h
9 1- 9 9 ;
nn
Patterson
18:30;
shot
(Patterson
There
rl-ri
f rni
l it-
tr
1'^
as
fired
DecI.
is,
have witnessed
2: A0
L23,
aL Deaf's
D e p . a t 2 ' 1, 3 4|
L1:00 to 14:30. )
at
e or-\^
rr
1 -6
toward
advanced
rn.,]
1-hA
DeaL.15
and recount
much of
to
question
Patterson's
entire
incident
The rear-
some reason
Deal's
na
at
99 5-6. )
however,
^l.c6r\ra
and
f -ighc, ParLe.rson
Patterson
Willians
Road
Doc
and puffing
GBI Interview
the
and DeaI
P a Trre r s o n o b s e r v e d D e a l a n d l , l i l I i a m s
lethal
was in
Prrnlza,ra
Durj ng the
9l9l4-5;
DF-l
incident.
GBI Interview"
to
18:00
the
Patterson
5 "Patterson
9 1- 9 9 . )
33-68,
4.)
punch.Lng Deal and grabbing
saw ['iil]iams
46,
eye-wlrness
between Williams
14:30,
to
PaLterson Dep. at
r raval
fight
the
^l1 e ,1 rr/ad
to
the
tl
r,F
Incident
of
qn
11^
\uvL.
Account
the
vehicfe
the
shows that
altercatlon
Patterson
outside
of
the
mav not
portion
" Patterson's
accounts varied as to how much contro.L !,l1lliams gained
firearm,
The Court wilL assurne that l^lilf ians did not remove
over Deal's
the gun, even par.tia.l1y. from Deal's hoLster/ because that is the account
( S e e P a t t e r s c n D e p . a t 5 3 - 5 4 t 6 " 7| 9 1 - 9 9 . )
most favorable to Plaint.iff .
1' Patterson
afso cLained to have seen Deal- administering
CpR on
',ti1.Lians.
(Patterson
Dep. at
34-35,
39,
56,
59, 105, )
The Court
parE of
Pdtterson's
drsregards
this
test r"I|o.ty because iL
is
clearLy
^^--.>.r:.'
d^
r-,, I ha
-rr<'rooat d
video,
10
-^n1-
rr r erl
are
lnere
^16,4il-1-i
the
l - ' l\ 7
of
view
number
fha
nrim:rr
facts
of
that
Shawnn Rogers's
Shawnn Rogers was the
PaLrerson and also
to
rhrir-rr-; Lr ^f r r v
')'^^
rhat
he
lociro
r,6.i^
o- -r /r .u. l
was not
driver
Ex,
of
in
the
nh
<
of
nîn,
lR^fle-s
dashboard
ad
r^Li:r/l
17-lB. )
r\ rp\.v\ !^jaLr! eJ
Rocers
DeD.
Den-
(Rogers GBI
the
fncident
same car
14,
have been Lrying
sure.
the
r:RT
aL
9.)
af
15-1
to
grab
Interview
of
camera shovns the
R',^Lava
Rîd
at
Tnl
3:15
arrriarr
-+
DeaI
anneared
Roflers
tl^,.\lt.tht
1:15
rear
rlar^,,dh^,,r
the
Rogers saw
gun,
Deaf's
at
Keith
as
6 "Rogers GBI Interview"
n
, eau: 1
!.
7:45;
f 'ohr-
l-Le
"Camera 2"
rrh
Patterson's
from
have wiLnessed a porLion
to
n
\ j r- r huh! !i n
_d
rry
e''1 q ro
Wif -Iiams mighr
-"
Account
Doc. No. 124, Rogers Dep. at
3:30;
hF
claims
(Doc. No. 4?,
r.Ti Ili-r-
i.\
detract
l'7
I i 1-r/
incident.
Addftrona.Lly,
to
view
i h6
bur
2:00. )
of
Deal/s
..iA6nr
the shol,
Camera 2 sholrs a car
9:41 :44, rhe exact mornent when Deal fires
At 9:41 :12, tne .a.r reverses oac,<
o-ief1y
!ass behi'ro Deal's vehicle,
'i'ew and one of irs
occupanLs (PaLtelson or Shawn"r Rogers) ye.Ils
irro
(
1
)
D
e
a
I
.
B
a
s
e
d
rhe Lime sLarrp nhen Lhe car passes Deaf's
o
n
to"r,a.ld
(2) rh. speed of f-ne car (as snown rn
ras slown rn :amera 2),
reh:cle
. a m e r a ? ) , a n C ( 3 ) t h e p a Lr i a J . l y o b s r r - i c t e d v r e w o t L n e d r i v e w a y l r o m r h e
-Lnic,al approach from rhe same direction
roao (as sho"''n by Deal's
in
Canera 1), one mighf conclude Lhat Patrerson did nor view any oI Ehe
q.n?.nn
lr
^-lê/
of
Lhe
wnr.lc
Del
d-tercaLion
ersa-
nev
l\al
w.:c
hi"a
-lat
.-:n
'-4
nv
Canera 1.
1" For example, (1) Patterson drank several beers and shots of liquor
before his GBI .intervievr (Patterson Dep. at 24, 25-21); (2) he drank about
soaked in
five
24-ounce beers and ate cherries
corn liquor
his
before
a
! -cFn" a- .q.
15);
r inn
(4)
/1rl
he Es
it
l-qr'
/?\
expressed
he
that
r^
fears
he
,\1, ci,jt
ha
testifying
/ , . r : . 1_ . . r s , s
l^^h^l
in
this
\onorown)
i^
ri.l
case due ro
(id.
dL
BB_
(5) ne js
103-)5, :08);
i.-iterate
Bl,
and d-sdvo"\'ed a portion
of his
'78-'19,
whlch !^ras drafted
by defense counsef (id.
declaration
at 6-'7,
9699; ooc. no. 118, DempseyAIf. ll 3-4): ano (6J his s!oLemenLs are riddLed
w-rh
. i- c o n s i s t e n ^ i e s a n d i n c o h e r e r c i e s
Dep.;
Lsee-_,gs!S!q]]-y Pa!te-son
P a t t e . r s o n D e c . I. ; P a t t e r s o n G B f l n t e r v i e r , r ) .
11
1:15
to
managed to get
away and draw his
heard
Rogers
2:00. )
Wif l-iams and Deal at

Rogers scopped to
(Id.
on.
LrrtJvs
ask
9:20
at
(Id.)
breath.
13 & 14.)
The pipe
-he
l^'<
ug|rllvl]lJ\"-:''-:-:
at
offered
to
provide
(Deaf
out
of
Rogers
and
states
he did
that
Dep.
the
at
in
not
GBI
he
fha-
with
L2
used by
184-92 & Exs.
at
,c6A
rh.'
nan
the
'd.)
iSFF
day of
che
L92-95.J
Deal
and
uri-ne
GBI Agent
^"',
:f
the
overlooked
blood,
Indeed,
/Tla:l
in
explain
have
on rhe
hair,
192-93.)
h6
being
norr'ro.18
(Id.
1ife.
13 Deaf testified
that the vehicfe
,fat .lp - iof l^ts usua. venic.e.
a burnt
not
must
use drugs
his
with
an open ashtray
Dea.I could
insner:t- jon
any time
or
pipe
(Dea1 Dep. at
id. )
he
veh'r-le
incident
samples.
a glass
was f ocat.ed in
oioe;
that
Dea.I testified
be
was fine
he
8:45.)
DeaL's Vehicle
incident.
(See
consofe.
r ^ l- r i r o
chat
at
continuing
to
appeared
1:15
looking
he was okay before

Deal
at
8:30 to
at
w a s f o u n d . in r - h e v e h i c l e
the
day of
nf
(Id.
Deal
moved toward
not
was
at
Deal on the
rrraeaniâ
i f
CBI investigation,
the
but
very moment.
10:40. )
to
end and unknown residue
center
shot
The Glass PiI>e in
6.
Durjng
the
Deal
After
16.)
(Rogers GBI Interview
Dea.I signaled
/ T.l
\1Y:/
away.
that
(Id.
Wil,.Liams'
weapon, Wilflams
Williams.
Deal-/ and Deal shot

to
away from
6:30,' Rogers Dep. at
to
6:15
2:00,
get
to
Rogers saw Deaf trying
-':e
1Rd-Fq
rha
l
Jerry
d:\r-cî
+r
to
Jones decided
Ex. 3 at
63-65,
to
regards
ir
nah
a1.
R1-RR
B.
Procedural
2OIL,
and
as
onrir-p
an
'adarr'
-hc
r--a'n
e if v
nn
-ar-i
rha
the
rrl
*:-crl
.annaa
" hrnLnvayl ua c c- u
lr' J r 4_l
ihF
Ex.
to
of
the
On
D;blin
r-itv
by
of
slfent
the
pipe's
15;
Luecke
filed
On
i nrr
-l ur h
r !r.ryr ,nr rehi i, n 6 "
revise
\/
Easf
September
f nr
cfîa
nf
Lrru
and
nandr
Fvrrv!r
refi]e
a.ka
The
2473,
iI
consofidated
No.
1 75 . )
mL-^-^^r!^.Lrlcr cct L Lc!.
nr .Yr
mn-rnn
f ^r
:nA
.nr]
an
Court
rirtc
ârmi
f f ^-l
for
h^F^-l^*-^
lJgIEtrLrclrlL-
irr,,larment,
le There r^ras a delay o I a l m o s L L h - r e e w e a k s b e f v , , e e n c o l . L e c L i n g

(Doc. No. 46, Ex. 3 at 114-15. )
resrir.g Lne Jrj ne sanpl e.
LJ
LO
evv
motions
q rmm^r\r
was
tactics,
r i _ l r y m er -e f
daclear
a"rcl a
the
qvYrrler
Of
case
r i l 1l ' r l 1 n q
qlmrn:-rr
and
r-hiaF
defense
2'/,
l-ha
2417,
federal
Dubfin.
di sn't1-ac
her
16,
lFnA rf 'rFnf -
Poli.:a
'r-1- i /-nc
(Doc.
suit
of
estate
September
i I1-conceived
rli scovcrv
ncrtl
nrese"tr'l
triilliams
rli:m
-hp
i,r.'l.rmant
f iled
inro
L2l ,
Lena
EaSt
delayed
f n'rr
Darties
r lrJ
of
a tr'tpr^]]q
rrncrrccoecf
Plaintiff
Wilfiams.
aoai-sf
s ign i Fi cantly
r nr-'rr/li
relatively
Amended Complaint- asserting
o9o
of
(See Doc. No.
administrator
Mefvin
-Ldr!
Le
Lne
History
Il ,
fifed
Plaincjff
is
invesrigarion
subsequent
of
day
(1d..' Doc. No. 46,
The record
129.)
the
son,
deceased
sample on
urine
were negarive.le
1'hF rraLlicle.
individuafl-y
!rrL!uqfrrY
II4-1,5,
any
On June
5 Ld
and che results
incidenL.
in
co-Ifect
and
a r , l - , c . a r y r r aI n
r ;i
on a motion
ruling
deferred
f 's
I h,^ a.rurt denied Plaintif

for
to amend and
motion
(Doc. Nos,
sanctions.
f86,
187. )
II
Court
The
no
qenuine
SIJMMARY JI'DGMENT
dispute
ent i I I ecl to
summary judgment
granL
should
as
to
material
any
irr.loment as a matter
'tmateriaf "
Facts
are
under
che governing
if
they
of
I 'rrht
Elec.
and
most
}aw.
subsranLive
Co. v.
Indus.
musr
draw
states
United
Favorab]e
v.
y^r"i
ILUvtrr9
by
CourL,
reference
motjon.
Celotex
Lo carry
this
Cir.
1993).
t--i=l
Lrerrs-hw
tha
Lo
Corp,
burden
f -LLZ9dLr-L(-ri
Lrrdr.
of
v.
ma,:n-
mr\/
en
l-ha
i n;
Carrect,
\,r-Ly
|Jr
essential
P. 56(a).
suit
the
Liberty
Lobby,
1n
r ir
h,rr.lah
fj 1e,
411 U.S.
has
i*if
element
I4
587 (1986),
favor."
licsl
in
creene
&
1991) (en banc)
the
lhe
F
Lhe
::l
of
-F
317,
.,
ALrduLd
-ha
in
\r^ts r<hi ia
574,
Prop.
Real
on
non-movant
.Arr\7
is
omitted) .
materials
v.
movant
nAri \,
415 U,S.
depends on who bears
When the
necral. inn
v,
Anderson
in.[erences
Parcels
h:c
the
outcome of
non-*6-zi n.t
the
and citations
r_!
Po!
is
Fed. R. Civ,
94I E.2d 1428, 1437 (11th Cir.
punctuation
.TA^
rrrs
and
the
Radio Corp.,
Four
"there
The Court must view the facts
;usr-i f iable
"all
Tuscaloosa cntys,,
(internal
to
Zenith
law. "
if
only
facc
couLd affect
Inc. , 47'1 U.S. 242, 248 11.986)

f hF
STAITDARD
323
for
Lhe
11986).
How
in
proof
of
. l. t
l?
burden
bUfden
the
basis
burden
r.1
f F^
oc rhrav rw: .t j_ r Yn n
of
tllch
proof
One
non-movant's
1q
at
at
Of
CWO
case
or
hrr
chnwinn
the
rh>r
41'7 u.s.
mnrran-'q
the
movant
has met
no
genuine
issues
judqment
248,
(1lth
statement
that
insuffacient.
-
If
the
"rlamnn<l raf
rherhe
lincl
of
rL pu sr ynvo- r .- sr e
f o
burden.
lf
sufficient
hrl-ari
L116.
fact,
il
f he
the
the
there
movant
to
the
+l-.-
rv j- , , ,w.r ,r r+ .v ir^r F
movant
hc
either
or
whether
are
entitled
to
at
triaf
initiaf
is
material
onl"y
issue
must
Ca-rrjed
motion
/'
F i t?nAtri.lz
show
ignored"
15
at
the
by the
by
fact
bearS
tailor
iLS
i-s
initial
negating
wich
evidence
trial
?
evidence
that
of
non-movant
verdict
of
burden,
j udgmenc
respond
"musc
nen:rad
was "overiooked
non-
mere conclusory
burden
r^n-.novant
shows an absence
must
the
there
ev-idence affirmatively
a directed
tn
is
its
Fr-,^ -^,,-tnt
non-movant
wiLhstand
cnrrnht
the
carries
indeed
f ri -1
the
non-movant
ev-Ldence that'
meet
''L.en the
nerh^^
Catrett,
Co.Lumbus' 120 F.3d
of
summary
is
S.H.
608.
avoid
may
v.
v.
that
it
curiam) .
929 F.2d at
if
that
City
cannot
rhe movant presents
fr^r
If
Jones v.
Droof
facL,
material
law.
(per
and
929
consjder
showing
l-^
Inc.,
Adickes
first.
of
cn.'rrAr'
nrorlrr.{Fq
hrr-rjen
fact
1 9 9 1)
iha]-.
mrc+
materiaf
non-movant
non-movant
& Clark,
can evafuate
Court
burden
Cir.
and only
the
initial
of
Clark,
^^^^_-
(explaining
i+
of
the
Coats
^v t ^z L^l e^J-Liw+L v \ ' , i ^ r
its
as a matter
254
Before
i| n"
v.
1991)
In, r. ^ \_, -v^c
1"44 (1970) and Celotex corp.
(1985))
rL es - qP vnr rnJ re - q F
r- ov
See Clark
398 U.S.
3L1
c\Ticlcrrr-c
(11-th cir.
6A4, 506-08
Kress & Co./
n.l
case,
non-movant's
F.2d
i q
f hara
on the
F
?.1
on a material
record
contains
movant
or
"come
forwarcl
with
directed
verdict
A^;
h,r raan
hr,
rcl
-ae-,nn-l
of
rzi nn
r.r:f h
I hi q
noljce
q s r Lruy, . rs r ?! r \ /
in
materiafs
No.
-lô
rU
-i.fhj-
fc/ncr:l
rr.S.
166.
acrion
?11
f-l ark
h'r
l rrcar.r
Ross,
Fa-lprA'
663
Rllfe
n..r i .e
for
filing
. f
1985) (per curiam),
maLerials
. DISCUSSION
for
in
crif
f i Ch
opposition
V,
are
has
consideration
Deal
civif
remed\/
'
I983,
(Doc.
defaulc.
the
Olher
Cir.
III
\rrn
Or
romcn-
now ripe
of
recrri
is
Against
her
affidaviLS
and Lhe consequences of

l-l^F
P- e i -r i_f f
.ie\/F
and informed
-iIe
.n
ri.rhF
aq*:hr
11q94 )
anrrrf
l -h ^
thtr
nrovides
Jnder section
showing of
rnn
its
Lhe non-movanr must
nrnui.lad
ae
Claims
Q c r - j -r n ' . r - a B i
cc
i n.t
l\4orris v.
Racher,
hFrl,rl
carry
cannot
ranF^t
see
summary judgment
exp.ir:ed. and the motion
Federal
l - J\ . '
for
The rime
A.
1981).
712 E.2d 822, 825 (1lth
satisfied.
withstand
56.
' f ' | " . ' a r .' n - a
Walnwright,
.r
complaint,
^f
opposition,
111 . )
rhe
to
The non-movanr
nl F^.J i n.rc
(11th Cir.
morion
I :domonf
in
ar-- i'r-
the
of
thF
a"rdarrit<.\r:c
Procedure
Civil
-n
1033-34
IA32,
!LJ}Jurru
1L16-11 .
at
contained
allegaLions
F.2d
Id.
sufficient
based on the afleged evidentiary
mot.ion at trial
-;6r-\t
evidence
additional-
nr.rar
+^
a plainciff
Lwo elemenLS: (1) that
16
'or
denrirzr-in.s
-ri ^l-.t^- I' luifY1l!--f-:
^y^vail
i-
r,
n tir.-r
f/l l Y51'
c i v iv' t !
musr make a prima
rhe act
of
JE 1 0
-! i ro9 h
cs
rr
facie
or omissjon depriveo
plaintiff
ConstiLution
act
right,
or
Iaws
of
privifege
)-aw."
Marshafl
Dist.,
992
Bd.
Cnty.
a person
(11th
by
the
Lhat
rhe
secured
(2J
and
acting
Educ'
of
7 1 ' 14
IIll,
tr.2d
States/
che United
of
oml.ssaon was done by
or
immunity
or
under
v'
Marshalf
Cir.
f993)
of
cofor
Cnty.
Gas
(quotations
omit t ed ) .
In
this
case.
of
state
rights
by
arresting
force
excessive
aLso claims
him wj Lhout
probable
the
maintenance
indifference
It
of
incident.
Deal
was
color
^-r.r -^
..-:z^-t
or rnr ru l
P(,trus
Deal conducted himself

at all
relevant
that
of
employed
He was patrolling
DubIin.
cause and by
the
Dublin
liability
in
as
for
cheir
sues
alfeged
defiberate
is
law
no
dispute
during
police
the
officer
vehicle,
.r.\/prnmenL-issued
as a legitimate
rights.
a marked police
r -a :! !rJ- r r i | 'nt Yn
L
over
Plaintif
exhibited
there
state
using
Pfaintiff
arrest.
Finally'
constitutional
here
Anendment
Fourth
custom which
or
noted
under
Deal was acting
East
of
City
a poficy
be
of
Deaf.
of
actions
to Williams's
shoufd
course
under
acting
while
Luecke has supervisory
Lhar Chief
Luecke and the
Cl'ief
williams's
during
t h e u n c o n s t i t u t i o n aI
violated
law,
color
Deaf,
cfaims
Plaintiff
that
subject
by
East
wearing
firearm.
farv enforcement officer
times.20
2o The Court recognizes

powers aL Lhe
po]ice
that
rime
Plaintiff
of arrest
11
has afleged
due to a
that
lack
Dea.L had lost his

of
state-mandated
Unlawful
*The
encompasses the
and seizures
probable
wiLhout
L332
E.3d
1328/
also
a seizure
constj-tutionaf
believe
AmendmenL's guarantee
Fourth
searches
ar.rest
Arrest
(11ch Cir.
reasonabfe
is
either
vlo]ation
of
suspicion
?t?
crimina.L
from
j94
which
nrnl-'rh
l A
i,,el.
r!,
is
Amendmenl, rs
Fourth
activi
free
sLop,
occurred
-:rrca
1-^
i f i ar"i
hru
See Arizona
-ae
l l h i r a LAe r e , . , : q- ,t,-e. !tw
e!
"'-r
/?nnq\.
568 E.3d 1,236, 1248 \11th Cir.
be
Monroe Cncy.,
based upon
has
1?n
rhe
unreasonabl e
ro
A traffic
if
555 U. S
Johnson,
2004).
the meaninq of
it
right
Crosby v.
wjthjn
trafflc
cause."
againsr
rr
v.
Q n n a r r ' ^^ s ,
2009)
under federal
law exists
Probable cause to arrest
is objectivefy
reasonabfe based on
when an arrest
of the circumstances,
This standard is
the totaflty
f
a
c
t
s
a
n
d
c
i
r
c
u
m
s
t
a
n
c
es
within
the
t
h
e
met when
has
knowledge,
of
which
he
or
she
officer's
information,
wouLd cause a
trustworthy
reasonably
prudent person to beLieve, under the circumstances
Lhe
sJspect
has
is
Lhac
c o m m ic r e d ,
shown,
committinq, or .is abouL to commit an offense.
City
McCormick v.
(11th Cir.
.-ri.
.^
Lauderda.Le, 333
\Al -h-r'-,rh
2003)
Ita\.a-rl-a
Fort
of
t,-qq.
-^-
nrnh:hl
rcorr i res
.altse
'rrri-w
,c
L234,
F.3d
ala.r
T.)re
1.<.
L243
l -n a n
^r.1.
rce
p o \ . i a r s : r a s n o o e a r - n q o n L n e a . l a l y s i s o f w h e - h e r D e a - LL n l a w f u l l y
arlesr:ed
because a viofation
Georgia law
used excess.ive force
of
Wiflians
cr
rp.i
v'claLron
ccnmitteC
-
Flrl
.l
-nq"riry.
under the
^.
ir
''r^
-11
.r.ac
ra:.r
-l^F
ar s
'l
r' '.1a-
"Secrion 1983 does not credLe ,; renedy for every v'rono

color ol state 1aw, but only for those that depr:ive a
tpn-,pl
r\^,a
of
ic
a.
ro-16,r'
r:dlr-
,-
oe
s t a t e I a \ ' . r".
Knight v. Jacobson, 3AA F.3d 1212,
arrested i-n violaj:ion
omitted);
accord Mazuch v. Rosier,
No.
7216 (71,Lh Cj-r. 2002) (citation
'7247I1,
at *B (S.D. Ga. Mar. 2, 201,0) (Section 1983
3:08-cv-018, 2010 Wl,
of srare law/pofjcies.").
"-Ls noL concerned !rjth a vjolation
18
i -
JUJtJ!rfv,'t
dnoq
rot
same standa.rd of
ceach rhe
necessary to
Lhe facts
even
committed
presence,
may,
he
318,
violation
l-rl
..rrrqe-
1333.
at
a
without
irrst
q v
.n
n:.-
ALwaLer v.
i f v
!
Here,
rronir_le
af (:r-a..
r.aillr-Fr
V\-L-L-L-dllL5
the
fI :dr.' - -
nn
/'
dav
+L -U^
nf
^r-rnarl
PlLr--rj
adjacenr
rhj s
crime
tha
at
cinn
di
Amendmenc,
arrest
seatbelt
for
-o
r'i.a
r--imc
js
n-rh:hle
.lanandq
jq4
a
! ! ur Jnp s
y 'h v -
<hal
rant
a
s sr l
:r
fha
that
sLop
l9
Lrlqr
related
LhaL
<i^h
ir
and
ro
i ^^
he
saw
-R- ^- r- t -
.P. .* m p
he
"observed
slammed on
white
Ar
Iine
.Line.
Irhe]
'li
nnl
pv__Ls
is
E.he whire
of
r-lo:rlrr
h
! 1r r
there
sjgn
of
al
ac B:00 Lo B:45,)
rhe way past
aL me, he kind
driver
uLrLLLu
ei-.1n
--
Lo stop
nrncood
npaf
of
F j.l
failing
qj- .n
lL -Jn
(GBI Inte.rview
par L icular
over
his
532 U.S.
issue
innidenja1-.\n
vehj cl e 9o p-rerry much alI

when he ]oored
in
Lago VisLaf
i.:rr l:r
na--
CIime.//
testified
L r urr '
ro
the
urhon
l/
*If
individual
Eourth
.f i vcq
facts
q-.\n
awcanf
Road and Buckeye Road.

usPwDl
an
Under O.C.G.A. S 40-6-72(b) , "every
fI i! , n
L Lo'
Or
of
for
the particu-Lar
:nnro:r-hi
r<LtU- p^ n
of
Ferraro,
offense
che
as
omitted).
that
custodial
set
trl tr'nenLS Of
l-hF
IOL
a_resj-
ar
a srop sign.
m>rlzarl
that
Lee v.
criminaf
City
naa.l
and probabilitv
believe
violating
_cular
i-.1
nr.\nf
(citation
2002)
minor
was constitutionaf)
,\?Jhc-he-
aar.sa
very
(holding
(2001)
354
r/l
rci
a conviction."
cause to
Lhe offender. "
arresr
ccrrvr
conclusiveness
support
has probable
an officer
rF
(1Lth Cir.
284 E.3d 1188, 1r95
has
reot)i
rne
And
brakes
almost
the
into
out
Based on
152.)
cause Lo perform
DeaI had probable
evidence,
Lhis
(Deal- Dep. at
roadway."
che traffic
stop.
A
rhe
olainfiff
of
burden
F!
i'r'nad::t- A
\/
af f er
vio-Lation
was not
-L iI I L Lr ,. r. I-I rI Dc Ll -A: ]-] -t Ea -c,
rh:r
rti
i c
rho
n..r nh
hr<
F:i
of
probab.Le cause.
rn
stop
Rodriguez
nn
,-r'idence
the
concfude
sworn
280
Farrefl,
(flnding
circumstantial
that
subsequent
and
v.
traffic
-\/
traffic
Ir n m e o r a L e r y '
I i c -L,-n^ r s
Of
stop.
rdulo
oursuit
Of
l,,rliLIiams'S
account
of
what
he
witnessed,
q-:fF.l
ar^t
Lar
violation;
Deal's
F.3d
thus,
account
pursuit
was
Plain
dlrect,
of
the
stop
juror
sign
fabricated.
where
inconsistent"
v.
t iff
sworn
a rational
See
(1-1th Cir.
1-341-, L352 n.20
Garczynskl
20
rar:\r
Deal's
contradict
was "not
testimony) ;
the
ih^lri
the
These
camera.
I h^
support
tl-'a
j on
violaL
cVanr
conjecture
onfy
evidence
to
1id
dashboard
rhc
s.ign vio]ation.
about
not
Deaf's
C-..-
and
-^-^rA
negate
Here,
1998).
Cir.
I raf f 'c
the
-n
See
dispatch
cause to
rrrrn
bears
or communicaLe with
j --el
arc
a r e l "L t
not
do
v.io]ation
dlrect,
by
lrrroc
irredi
testimony
2002)
captured
was probable
n-,icanl- e.l
coufd
the
i"uLLeurqssr
utJPoLUrr
i. e. ,
qeei no
h^wF\/Fr-
there
vehicle
,,r'l awfu.L arreSt
n
roLrahl e
u!vvuLr!
emergency Iights
his
rlLuL(uvLqLvrl
u,ras n
r r vn
f hera
aror:es
noL accivace
whether
absence
or
Evans, 133 F.3d 1425, 1436 (lfth
Rankin v.
p :. n.i
an
showing
r-lajn
assertLrl]
plaintlff's
with
Bradshaw,
officer's
573
F.3d
1l-58, 1165 (11th Cir.

q.lme
rhar
mef anl'vsi
rmere scintil-1a'
fnr
In
of
't
Because there
is
probable
cause for
st.op sign
whether
stop
Wi].Liams.
favor
2.
Fourth
"The
searches
and
from
use of
the
force
of
nrcr-i se
rlef in:1-rnn
1244
ci rra
.erF<nl
c lrcumstancesr
Lhe
in
facc
it
is
regarding
unnecessary
to
G R A N T E Di n
arresl .
Conner/
severity
21
the
of
he
is
f-^^
a use of
is
one
385,
396
capabfe
of
U.S.
"not
" district
totafity
the
-t^ t ^
an arrest..,
question
490
test
of
^^-
-^
whether
the
application,
to
attentiOn
..--^-
rioht
course
threshofds,
meChanica-I
"the
from
olai-
the
reasonabfeness
including
an illegal
of
unlawful
To determine
v.
n;
that
just.ification
f r:eedom
force
reasonabfeness.
Because the
for
by
stated
sunmary j udgment is
encomDasses
at
Constirurjon
also
additional
claim
defeat
Force
exceeds constitutlonaf
(1989)
m ql
was
federaf
excessive
McCormick, 333 F.3d
has
to
rhe
violation.
Amendmentt
seizu.res
r-6..i\
no genuine dispure
Accordingly,
Excessive
order
-n rr o n - m o vf n g
and performed
a sear belt
there
Deal as to the
of
in
more
facts.
t-h,a, u
nmi
Deal
U-turn.
determine
materiaf
violate
--P.
was nor- wearing
to
r inr
nor
f4iIIiams
rhe
the
incrrffinianr.
tr|,r^
-arrrrireS
clr snrrf e
evidence
Deal did
-.^ff1
r.t,a
tc
is
substantial
conclusion,
oenr: ine
aS
evidence
-irrdamonr
crrmm:rrr
r-rir--i^^
cloubL
cal
must produce
party
2009) ("A
crime
courts
of
the
ac issue,
\^lhFrhFr
I he
officers
rhe
^r
v.
nf
in
the
rcrqnnq
.v !.]hv U- LA! q.rf| v v t l jt - z c l r u
of
r- ar'zc'd
F.3d
605
rnr trad]
Qeasonah
reasonable
20/2A vision
of
nn- j -a
-h:-
judgmencs rapidly
rrr
IJo!
r " r il - l _ n r r r
Ac
of
843,
reasonabfeness
nffr
in
rcr5
are
evoLving -
l-^
hie
397.
s'rh- a.f
Lhe scene,
offir-er-/'
Cir.
forced
that
are
Id.
22
at
are
rn-ent
f f Om Ehe
f ..r'r
!ense,
force
396-91 .
v.
:_:jji:,L
(citation
rnJ e
U -- sVnPeUrU: r ' -j r
Lhan wirh
at
raVa
same
Dtrnle\/
'
t he
rather
--
the
2010)
must embody aflowance

ofcen
Jackson
rrnderlrrino
possessing
(1lth
+l-^
actions
evaluated
be
officer
l-hF
acLjon
Whether an officer/s
"rncf
about the amount of
. r^ . . 1 ^ - ^ r - . . a t i o n .
"
injury
2000).
Graham, 490 U.S.
circumstances
the
scene.
officer's
J uu9Eu
hindsight."
the
( 1 1 t h Cj , r .
rcnard
852
on
a rLhl t e r
u
^^^
-r"'-^.1
officer
rr .c-l l.
wheLher the
aI
the
whether
i-fo-rati-n
Eslinger,
ca]culus
nrri.Frq
reasonable
of
extenr
6f
resjscing
affecting
of
'.thiecf i tre.lrz re:cnnahl
is
<afa-rr
rha
acLjvely
incidenr,
Graham, 490 U,S. at
perspecrive
is
trl
/'
1
L
- rr- 9^ h i L ,
tr\/
the
the
nnlino
and
re:qnn>hlo
or motivation.
of
of
he is
:rreqr
inc.lude
context
question
The
n:--'c
erradc
206 F.3d 1156, 1170 n.18
Sauls,
....1r-.i-
may
f hreer
in'neclialc
and whether
duralion
the
pface
n rnf-o r
i nr_r rn
factors
inflicLed,
^r
others,
or
,aitamnl-
rele\rant
takes
rl.\ses
slsoecr
396.
for
the
Ve
rhe
"The
fac!
cnr : - -q6^.ncL
uncerLa.Ln/ and
that
is
necessary
n^,r:F.r-_^-
r 1 ! . r \ . rr L - L \ J r r o
_L r\r6s
e
- ra" sm a
! r u, I,/n
LE
The use of
cases.
r-^,,rt-
:^.l
appl -cable
force
deadfy
Cj rcuit
Eleventh
considerations
some specifj c
explained
force
r..
!!y/
is
have
r'o deadly
likely
more
to
be
reasonabl-e if:
1l\ l-ha qrlqnp.-f n.)scs an immediate threat
n h r z e i r - aI h a r n r o o f I i c e r s
or others,'
of
serious
(2) the
cornmirted a crime
invoJvlng
suspecr
the
infliction
of serious
or threatened
inffiction
h.rm
cji.h
l-hat
risk
inherent
e!!+v-t
(citing
nrer-n-diI
(198s)).
io^s
officer
U.S.
tn
312,
physical
1ar.'frrt
harm to
nnlo
officers
n
,roctinn.
\4u!U!+vrJIYl''llLLLrv
q]]qnFrtr
f'a';a
llcon
wnrrld
^r:r,el
rr
I21 5,
1281 (11th Cir.
âco-
fha
a^rrf
Firl^l.
2002).
.
This
hor
r]anrrarnlq
an
An
tt
ri
ScotL v.
force
Fo-r-c
factor
16rc^h:11lc
Par-c
-z
hv
cases rurn
icc
23
'a
^F
6n
threat
of
550
on the
serious
at
851;
can be reduced to
ni
rnrrmcl-rnaac
nolir-e
Cannhr
of f ir-e.s
arr-o-
maLerial
fact
frno
,)R?
Under che circumsLances of
^^-'i--
ni.l
Harris,
S S e r _ s, . j _ g _ . ,i d .
l-ho
471 U.S.
thaao
imminent
nitran
l-^
Garner,
,.)F dtra.ll
(citing
others.
or
rnF6=ra.l
i,.\n
deadly
of
1168.
\\urhar-
Lave
nf
Ofcen,
Garczynsk.i, 573 F.3d at

c
and
Tennessee v.
1d.
presence
the
ranra<anl-
public,'
:nnli.:j-
a suspect.
3 8 2 ( 2 0 0 1) ) .
factor,
first
l:r.rF
u^L'avar
1\p
seizing
ar
issued a warning or could

eicher
have done so before using deadly
LL-12
r,
hpinfi
Lhe general
to
(3) Lne officers

noc feasibly
force.
!
hic
tO
F
3d
rhis
On this
I udgment.
incident
che mosr salient
Williams's
a r r o r e q q i r r e lv
his
posing
car
for
not
at
go inco
's
cafcufus
firearm.
excessive
of
same time,
the
Iorce
or
or
on camera."
simply
.i.e.,
getting
push WiIIiams
while
does not
in
with
his
out
of
the
behind
viofation,
Deaf
hand on
show what Williaros
was he attempting
back into
wifliams
those
force,
upon pulling
ttaffic
The video
fact,
In
story.
of
Lhe evidence -in the light
claim
minor
answer the
che ca.Icu.Ius are
Immediately
a
video
of
aonroached an unarmed Will-iams
a threat,
ro
cried
is
folfows.
hol-stered
was doing
sumrflary
existence
a partial-
Viewing
Pl-aintiff
as
cfearly
onfy
that
factors
to
favorable
finds
ls
on rhe video.
not appearing
Court
does not
because it
force
the
many sltuations,
to
.lFni.1-ino fhe
most
precfudang
factorf
third
-? -t
Contrary
excessive
as the
as well
factor
flrst
his
car?
to
Then Deal
rhe car-though
questioned
Deaf/s
flee/
this
actions,
:t
in
favor
of Plaintiff
in that
nitigates
The second factor
WiLliams had not committed a serious crime such that. his apprehenslcn was
criti cal .
As
conduct is troub.Iing.
The apparent rashness of Dea.L's initial
"
Lhe proEecri 01 of
have rvained/ "Defendants cannot claim
coJr!s
o:her
qud i.'ieo -m,runjLy when tne-r ot'n objecLively unreasonao.e acLions created
swoffo-d
L l e v e r y r j s k r n a r - g e r e r a L e o E l e e v e n t u a - L . s e o f d e a d l y f o - r c e ."
(quoted source
EsLinger,
61I F.
Supp. 2-d 1289 (M.D. FLa. 2009)
v.
omitted) , cited in Avers v. Harrison, No. 2:IC-CV-32, 2012 VIL 529946t at
* 6 ( N . D . c a . F e b . 1 1, 2 A 7 2 ) ; s e e a l s o T e n n e s s e e v , G a r n e r , 4 7 1 U . S . a t 8 - 9
(instructang
of
to
the totafity
the circunstances
courts
to
fook to
Thus, Deal's
conduct
used t{as reasonabfe) .
determine whether the lorce
f.r.^
ic ralavanl Lo the reasonableneSs
lda.lir.l rrr- i-o his ,-lea.ll
parLicrlar ly wnere, as here, only thi rLy saconos elapsed betwee't
i nq*iry,
For thjs reason, Lne CorrE declinos
srop ano Lhe fatal snoL.
Lhe -nitia-
24
-I L^ S ,t,\- r^ -rô n g
aSK.fng
Wnat
most of
which
is
also
head
DeaI's
is
unclear
f/1r rr-lf c.t- io-
:n.l/or
ha-rrrea
established
t^lh i
t6
I ha
i an
-aanina
of
nf
r-^
whether
-o
n-ior
hAnks
and
. 1 1 ff
away Deal was able
m:\/
a,,-r-ar'\T-
ih^f
i,h. -c ,
hnrr
f:
a w ay
hi<
-Lc was feas rble

t s
fr r'rr-r
That is,
determinaL-on.
protecting
his
.'^mar^
il
cc ge!
F\,^6-rh6
ch^^l
.^
rhi.rr,
lU- s\ ^- -w, e
. ,c^l ^l h
d- i- -i - - - ^-^c l l t U e
shot,2'
DeaI to
firearm.2a
.^nn.)f
tL- ll r- c\ 6
importanLly,
], ^
l, Ly tl e n
Lhe
viewed in
The quescion
nave issued
inranr:l
<a^^F/lc
gain
from WiIIiams.
af
Lhe IighL
f ^.-1
a warninq
fnr
most favorable
of force-Lhe oII-camera
r o c o r . s rd e r D e a l ' s f i r s t a p p f i c a L i o n
from the seônd and fa!al
Lne car door-sepa-raLe and disr'nc!
^l
weapon
his
ab.Ie to
draw
his
couJd have backed away before
for
a-lso
hofstered
hls
weapon remains an open one.
.---
fi.a
Deal
a punch at
withdraw
Dea.L is
Then,
Williams
:n:i
to
Erying
on
was
Deal
f e e L w h e n D e a - Lf - i r e d t h e f a t a f
was six
^,r6a1-
or
from
how far
tnrrrr
be seen chrowing
hands
-tlcm,
uu'wcclr
two men reentered
When the
both
use.23
norl
I - L ^9l -n' f L
-rra
L\^-!.,^^h
^-^'.^.1
e
ltsueu
t;
whether
grabbed
m,rmenl..r\/ senaration
Lr^,-'a('ar
a-
colLd
had
Deaf
from being
firearm
off-camera.
whife
It
firearm.
W iI I- ln'
williams
camera frame,
rhe
y. ' Ô' . U ,
.,
i,rrtr
to
pushing aL
dpplicdrion
l:rar
:l
Any o-screpancy thaE exisrs over Lhe degree oI conEroL Wi- lians
Indeed, given the serious
is not inmateriaL.
over Deal's flrearm
-,6îhil
, \/ ice,,a<
in^
Dafan.l^nfe'
^.im.
w-Lness on LnIs Po1nL,
.
.
.
r
Y
- : A. qll.rA -harc av:<1. : r|acl'.n
cAA cA.-i.r
of facL wheLher Williams
even attempted to grab Deaf's firearm,
obtained
he did not
Interrnediate
5
There is evioence thaL Deal had pepper sprdy on h-s person, bLL
The choice
of using
his
firearn
rather
than an
use it.
! ^ r e a p o nm a y p l a y i n t o t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s c a 1 c u 1 u s .
ee
'c^
-l^
1,
srrr ro.
25
-r-.r-f
if
F-LclIllL-lI
!f f tirn
u fdr ir n
Y cr
-]'^
that
Deal
actcr-i
tno
at
In short,
îr,.-.
i
5l LUdLrntr
was reasonable
Plai,ntif f 's
ilr','
end
in
Deal-
rY -v vrrrr lr r\ l /r e
-rrnen1vrrq
off
lr:'a
hu ac ir n nr - y
in
rhair
r rl au r . {
Jc u
of
the
on
that
he is
reasonable
Fitzgera.Id,
to
whether
have perce.ived
r<l hl rnJnr lJ-Li h- L^ i r g
iS
a
che
l^lilli:-^
Consequencly,
force
go
must
to
committed
DENIED.
cfaim.
narlrlr'ni
nrr:l
no
r-nr.'i;.r^l
SO far
to
i f i crl
he
qualified
imm,,ni1-
disr-rel-iora-v
^L -ohP- a^ \i r- : a '< L r s r .
o.r
would
4 5 7 U . S . 8 0 0 , 8 1 8 ( 1 9 8 2)
protects
rr
\vr .
from
T
r r.d: \y/,nr F
c
are shie.Lded under
COnduCt
does
constitutional
have
immunity
f rtnr'f inrs
Iwnliri JI UeLnl n
officials
"their
staturory
person
if
even
entitled
aS
escaolished
as
har
r-l,aim
f l^'s
arrrlifiari
immrrni t\./
uhar
excessive
Pubfic
which
a quescion of
is
circumsLances.
of
contends
force
q
fact
would
:nr]
526 U.S. 603, 609 (1999).
clear.ly
of
Imnunity
viofation,
excessive
the
l61pn1-
Qualified
constitutional
F'raFrm
d o e s n o t a p p e a r o n c a m e r a'
position
cfaim
c rmmerrli:
Defendant
safety
material
,q4qr-n- a
o lr vn ur r c
yu
liqht
federaf
3.
of
-Ln his
1.r
9Lc7vc:l]
<1>
hrc
uIr irnaLe question
hjs
JqyYv!
the moment Deal decided :o use deadfy force,
officer
reasonable
q rnrrorl L
worr'rJ
c li s r - h a r o i n . t
the
[eared for
genuj-ne issues
are
there
'r
hAsf i lrr
when so much of the incldent
fact
rvrt 'ude ve n -
fL r l- ^v e
Finally,
wheLher DeaI reasonably
on
'arlV
nartrc
.,^--i-,
w
arnl ng.
any
w.]-tnout
v^^^yd
known."
nrra-ifiod
not
viofate
rights
of
Harlow
v.
imm rnif rr is
^ ^n
q^ .u. ê^ sr t - LI o
^1
o
r
-I d- ,!.' ,v
+I
tne
or
of
court.
Lauderdal-e, 7 F.3d L552, L551 (11th Clr.

Circuit
The Efeventh
, , r or a . q F
mlq-
nf
orrali
u!
-har
n
r.\re
P!vve
a tf ho-il-
dienre-innarv
vrJL!cLrvrrq!]/
then
rIct-LllLLl
-r-
eâ
l-, s
J_
force
d i qr Ln! r! -ct u' rr l d ! y
hecause
Lherefore
had
-+-r,r--"
a- "u-Lhr^r-ui !- rr L' l ,
^--.,-1
rnl
jr- iaq
8-21(a),
l*POST"l
rhe
of
1-lÂ 'rqe
Ga.
had
nf
mandaLed by
powers,
rieadl
r r, o s
q
Comp. R.
f rz -o
21
Ceorgia
and
aS
dead lv
to
and
Georgia
tLav
-u^vm
^
, ' ^Lly r a
E tL- E
t^â-
!s(lo!
"the
agency I s
na-f
of
thai
Training
:nd
rer-nnni
SS 35-
464-5-.03.1(b)
Regs.
Fnnr^\/a
fnr6g
law
See O.C.c.A.
and
the
!v!
aF/.i
f ay.F't
SLandards
rr
of
farce"
&
tse
rr asnr r4rui t ! sruo d
a/-\n-r
rr
.u lucu :q dr yl
Pursuant
requirement.
art-ho-i
,,rLr^.r*
,u tJ cl va d
ha
C.rnn o1-e.l
not
deadly
Oflicer
sf af rtto-ru
.L^n
Ly
nffiaor<
annual training
Peace
-"
..l-hc
use
35-8-7(16);
has
^ ^ t sL rr -l r^Y
^-r
clearly
i I \l
ou
pol1ce
his
nnlino
PvrrLs
ra.f^r.lr.r-r
Georgia
DeaI
rL -ar i an-irn. rrr-r r9
on
twenty-hour
The
Iosr
F] -^---^
limications
ouLrru!f
must
Id.
standards,
n^-l
('UODF training")
training
rl--ts
cl!\.1usJ
l ^ i. t l i a . r s
nq.
uYgILJ
âtS
953 (11th Cir.
violated
defendant
n i <r-r,ar ir''na r\./ Aiirh.tr
his
the plaintiff
burden,
law based upon obiective
estabfished
cnrna
the
nf
r^rrnnnar'l
lanadlrz
the
Off iCial
qr-.\r1c
f hp
Lemacks, 50 E.3d 950,
that
demonstrate
JLJIJU
f re
when
for
defendanC
the
w' f ht n
the defendant meets this
If
1995) .
\/
v.
Hartsfield
occurred.
Fi-qj-
ar-- i nn
wAs
he
analysis
a two-part
nnrrnitrr
tierf
\4uqr
utilizes
1993).
Counci.I
zc
<rq6l
training.
O.C.G.A. S 35-B-2f(b) .
Firearms
R e q u aI i f i c a c i o n , "
must
officer
each calendar
a minimum of
one hour
year.
(Doc. No.I21
, Ex. l)",)
fail ure
in
foss
the
police
officer
who does not
Code sectlon
?\-R-'l
71:\
r.rirh
-hic
n^r^rorq
shaLl
nf
/"Anrz
near-e
nh;rn-elrr^r
be
not
fulfilf
his
or
her
nf f ir-cr
qo
nor
be
shall
authorized
to
*r:iri-o
t-:e
authorized
nanar:l
exercise
nr i va f e
c - .li i z . e n " w h o
is
authori
zed
to
I o
Pinckney,
255 Ga. App. 692, 694 (2002j.
Aq
12,
qhor,rn
2010 -
course
Lrarrrflr9
and
hrz
Deal/c
cit.izen's
POCT
Deaf
compfeted
four
hours
of
basic
firearms
(Deal Dep.,
ef f ect
arrest
f rînin.r
Ex.
28
.lrloq
An officer
to
Iaw
ila
eamnl rr
Lhe
exercise
n : r r i re-r vr ur rlqa! +rl l/ r r
arrest.")i
who fails
to
the
Status
of
an
arrest
onf v
State
d:rorJ
enforcement
requaliflcation
2.)
id.
nnr-
statute.
nr^f
of this
arrest.");
and
and
("Any peace
power of
the
D r J- s r J a r r
Geo ro' a' s
arrest
of
co
lr;
\relecraf ed
:q
horrrs
whn
an
rraining
requirements
power of
Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 464-5-.03.1-(b) .

. - / 1 m - t^ - 6
annuaf
5 35-B-2f(d)
crlnlorrecl
.1f f i r-e-
en f orr-onant
2AA6,
UODF training
power
training
the
1,
of
che
officer's
an
See O.C.G.A.
lose
shall
of
powers.
general
complete
Lo
POST's "Rul-e of
January
effectjve
attend
Importantly,
resufts
to
According
v.
An/-ynei
training
and
On December 8,
UODF
2AAB,
lJ s- jro a : lI
n
u va
r " ym n l
(rd. )
arad
he
and 2009,
Ar
lost
no
authority
re.tlAlif'r-,atio"r
rearms
DeaI
but
his
some point
one
completed
to
"
(rd. )
in
U O D Ft r a i n i n g
law
exercise
of
hour
rraining.z'
UODF
lDeal
- .
-laal
2008
enforcement
qrrhiecr
nnrnl
t c
pOqT
fo
inciclent-
at
37 & Ex.
he
POST profile,
and,
ln
that
r,f
hnn-
Deal
n^-1
tn
1[ 16;
Dea'
On
time.
make-
Decf .
H^L^/Ava--
'n1^
1/t
2;
\
Tn-c-rriaw
ficl
that
^na
c-ad
POST ar
Deal recognized
on his
deficiency
llen.
-eouest
wa'vcr
December 2009,
in
Dea l
)A1 A,
ir:inin.,,
2009,
fi
See O.C.G.A. S 35-8-17 (a) .
rt sr A
r J lL, u\ ro l! r) e
/ r\/
Fv
onlv
compfete sufficient
not
had a UODF craining
lF
.f
rcorral i fication
Because DeaL did
Dowers.
horrrq
December 8,
On
Fi ra:rns
fnrrr
the
believed
IIODF
No.
Doc.
di.l
noj-
day
send
of
thaL
the
his
't
Though i! is noc noLed on h-Ls crain-ng p-Lolile/ Dea.I c.Ia-ms rhar

but he does not
included
some UODF trainlnq,
tne December 2008 training
(DeaL Dep. at 46;
r e c a - L h o ! . r m u c h t i m e t h e y s p e n t c o v e r i n g U O D Fm a t e r i a l .
According to Chief
POSTInterview. ")
see also Doc, No. 125, Ex. 1"Deaf's
actually
consisted of 2'5 total- hours
Luecke, the Decemlcer2008 training
^r
{i1F^
''-
lifi.^r
'L
-inr-i6c
^.
r-ODF
(Luecke Dep. at 62, rA3-A4. )

chief Luecke believed that it was
training'
as nandated by POST.
hou: of UODF training,
not necessary to do a fulf
for more
(Id, at 62-64.)
1ike" he should receive credit
Deaf afso "feIt
-^,,-
^f
r-.r'ni-^
rh:^
L^
rle
d- ^L L u id
I LY
aawared
Pe!r(,rlt'eu,
(Dea1 Dep. aL lB-22' 29-30. )

Chief Luecke aLso testified
materj-als.
p
a
y
i
n
g
a
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
he UODF trainlng.
were not
{Luecke
his officers
(1) who was
i
n
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
ncies
as to
f
a
c
t
u
a
f
T
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
a
l
s
o
?
6
,
at
)
insErLc:or ouring rhe rra-n-ng, and (2) llhar time of day Lhe Lra-ning
'c66 l-':l
1Ar
at 4\-46; DeaI's POST lnLerviet{,' Luecke Dep,,
15. )
2' Deaf and Chief Luecke confirn
that there
(Deal Dep. al 15, 49-50; Deal
Decernber B, 20A9.
ChieI luecke also confirms Lhat !here
aL 88. )
(Luecke Dep, at 88, 94. )
Deal, however,
2C09.
'rlF
-r:
r'.^
l-,-r
-l.aq
F^f
a^f
ra'lv
rpra..ha.
-l^F
'
that
Dep.
the
Look
tx,
was firearms
on
training
D e c . l. ! l 1 5 ; L u e c k e D e p .
was ro UODF Lraininq
in
fike"
he also did
"feft
rr::Frid
in6^l
ntrr
aL
on December B/ 2049, was Richard

Whife the instructor
16-29, 130. )
BranL.ley, Deal did noL remember ever being -nsLrucLed on LODF by R.ichard
t s r a n t 1 e y . ( D e a 1 D e p . a t 4 9 ; L u e c k e D e p . a t 8 B ; D e a f ' s P O S Tl n t e r v i e ! " . )
29
was
training
up
(Deal
intact.
to
DecL.
corresnonclence bv
the
power of
offrciaf
to
authority
had not
arrest
( D o c . N o . 1 2 1, E x . 7 ;
that,
at
Williams,
Deal's
police
As previousLy
authoriry
during
the
actions
undercaken pursuant
"raro
643
uiIhin
F.3d
rha
899,
qcnna
within
subject
initial
the
performance
nF
errrhnritrr
and
had
is
hls
his
of
been
to
discretionary
duties,
(citation
not
on Deal
Lhat
-R.--h-F, -r -f q-
"
2011.
July
Discretionary
of
Deal's
shooting
burden
2A11)
Cir.
show any
(3)
as of
fethal
scope of
Lo the
not
and
The Court f:.kewise
Iost
incident.
hiq
2011
and
oI a governmenral officia]
(11th
903
the
were
the
to
DeaI losr- his
2009;
Ex. 1.)
of
powers
stated,
he was acting
inc-Iudes "alI
time
the
show that
1,
been reinstated
Doc. No.39,
concludes
did
cherefore,
t2)
on January
arrest
were
according
POST profile
DeaL's
powers
POST's Certification
of
2008 and 2009;
in
UODF Lraining
However,
Director
(1)
Division:
Training
18. )
police
his
that
and
date
r,r.
authoricy
(1; were
and
(2)
-Srn-i-c-l .m. .a- n ,
omitted)
see
2t
Pfaintiff
fiLed thas suit,
Defendants submi--ted
Soroe tine
after
r f.,rms t,1 POST for Dea.L and other officers'
2OAB and 2AA9
(See Deal Dep., Ex. o; Luecke Dep., Ex. 8;
t s,
J O D i L r a i n i r . g d e l r c - L e n ce
POST has since recognj-zed the February 2010
Deal' s POST Interview, )
as
nakeup fraln-ng and er-Lereo a wa-ver for !he 2009 rrarni-nq ae'iciency,
(Deal Dec-. 1l l6; Doc.
rerlecreo on Ded.'s updaLed POS" Lrainlng plof-1e.
Deal, howeve.r, has presenred no aLrhorLLy sho!./ing rhaL
xo, 16, Ex, 1. )
Here, the Court. evafuates the
effect.
the POST waiver has any retroactive
t\-^
rook place."
Cir. 2C03).
..Fi..p.'
Storck
Fr th1-ir\/
v.
Ci!y
of
\whpn
rra
Coral
Spr-ngs,
30
:-l6d64r\/
. . n ^ ^ n c . r - I 1r : . . .
354 F.3d
I307,
13i4
eaLS
(11Ef
Holloman v.
Hoffoman ex rel.
also
î y
'11r1^
.li sr:ret
i ov " nq a r vr _ t
f'rnrri^n
/$A
?OO4I
i=
artrhoriF\/
/ -Lhr .r ru u
ic
he
nrrrcrrina
immrrnirrz
1.r1 i ^na
ntt
âr^rFrlrz
^mi
L LcrtIJ
f i r<1- nr-n.'
<cnna
nf
ruvP!
-one
q
J !vt/v
. r- \ 7 a c r i n : l - a
^
mef in
rL v n
.Y rq . rurY rv . a
stop
i q
trr//
auLhority
F.3d
A.M.
v.
to
of
fhe
turns
to
the
at.eq
j-h rnrrcrh
"A defendant
at
F.3d
.'1]r1-t <
L264
e.l
tO
Eleventh
1995)
aurhority
fo
and policies
3l
of
define
v.
(referring
the
s-afe
See
T^h-
State
scope
lli nbqllt,
to
guardian
.F
laW
1283 (11th Cir.
Lenz
.flti clr-r-o
che
within
of f jciaI.
Supp. 14951 1508 (M.D. Afa.

e jrr-rrrtrs
ne
However,
acted
that
1?17,
of
j-
)q
i csue
'ooL
to
arresr
were "wLrhin
i-el\/
olficial);
Cir.
scope of
889 F.
1266.
aI
force
James, 157 F.3d
(11th
TF
rr r-nnteqred
r^r.r
n-art
an
dr'j- rac
See id.
A.Labama statutes
decide
faws
ef f ectuate
a government officiaf
aDi l.or'tv
v.
to
1546
crant,
.ich-
iob-rel
/hl
370
-rEf jr-a-'c
lccritim:tcl
transporI,ation
of
1540,
sraruIes
nf
fnc.
(looking
1998)
h-rs
sunxna
ry i udgmenc on
:n,l
and use of
sserrv!!Lti
I lê s.^na
n_ ino
nn-'r-p
,a rf l^rrrt'z
his
Int'1,
HarberL
^.^lI
receive
thj-s case.
traffic
rrrl-hnri
ot
no
Ho1loman,
"
To deLermine whether
rL hI L o
inh-rolala.l
rrrvLarrY
wi-Fi.
iq
hi c
v!
nerforri
within
power Lo uriILze.").
nrnttndq
F
^
Lv
DeaI's
whelher
acLS
f f a.l\
f! a
s rr ' l e r
9e,'u!qrry
la\
burden may not
unabfe Lo meet rhis
/-i
weq
e
Pu!Jur|v
means Lhat were w-ithin his
nrrrlifiad
of f 'cial
no\rF-nnerl
qverrv
370 F,3d L252, 1265
Harland,
of
of
51
Fforida
ad litem),'
1995)
iFia
("In
^^,,rt
Alabama to
crnna
nf
hpr
q.-nn
h:rro
stel- rif F
tL h" gc
tha
Dr)wer
enano
af
ncar-e
;irresf
of
:ncl
na
.l-
ira
/.'Ff i /-a-
h^l
n6rf
IJcr
^/-f i n.r
..n6.1
r (.,lrrlse
.:n:lnnnrrq
which
,an
2AA6) (holding
867 (11th
nnl
iaa
De:l's
af
A.tri
2908220,
at
v.
who did
fr)
in\/acf
no
to
r.tarF
and
within
oll
{looking
( M .D .
not
Coral
r ' \o. \w
G reFrr
p
v.
Ga.
to
l''.
Gables.
Florida
No.
Crawford,
have authoricy
32
28,
to
iS
- -iJcn ,
immunity.
ggg
their
Cf.
(-tlth
cir.
outside
of
discretionary
30I
F.
faw to
^ r rr o
q fs t
a
re
.nainSL
- rrisdir-f
-,--,
hiq
gg4,
within
Deal
vn o w e f s
who used force
tf -o
Sept.
nnl ir-e
nf
rnnv,
as a
when
uy
f^rô
rraadl'
qualified
lose
E
a
u ut t! rr rhv o
r r i t vr
vrqsri
sicle
not
Therefore,
his
nf
officers
of
use deadly
'-secl
1o?
City
Peterson
*5
of
were nor acring
-h -, a- rdt
Fir-or
wno
indi
incident.
the
Inss
police
2008)
Cir.
viduaLs
as
force
anrl
ai'---:
that
jurisdict-ion);
otlicer
c fL v.u\ n
offi.er
.1f
Ba"I
to
or
q.ono
fhe
ir-
jurisdiction
aurhoriLy) ;
(referring
were acting
officers
o
"'l'l
Deal did
of
can cause an officer

\/
201,2)
nower
arresLs
time
wirhin
l- r:ff
Fn
.rr
Eheir
fhe
T ^ r ] e o r ' l-
Wil-Iiams.
rhe
rerNEyr
v.
to Georgia scatutes'
effectuate
to
Ca.
the
artf hnritrzl
in Lhis case, according

have authority
r'lEllLo
I /
nf Ficers
conc-Luding that
in
fhoi
(S.D.
n.4
1373
t'
within
was acting
officer]
-"rL^-.
|
dlrLrlU!rLy.
"cleIrrino
yvry!!
crime"
detect
q r---r-e r - - IL ^( )- l. l-d ! -y' '
di
?.1 11,6,1
Jsvv'
fu ,srv.! rY-rr r t i A
Ia probation
whether
determine
Appx.
855,
det.erm.ine if
. l ce
. r rul -t sq ii d
o
1:06-CV-51,
.f f
o
h is
h
2007 WL
(School
police
make off-campus
arresL
2 0 0 1)
be a private
"cannot
arrest
Icitizen's
9w
v s!
--
rr(srr
^Fh6r
1=
because Deal had lost

-lat-r<^
.v !f
nn
nn'rt
in
l,v!rr
Harrison,
Ci rcuit
who failed
c^^-ai:
l:r-r
disrricL
Lhe
of
status
of
rvvyqv!rr.lJsuLuv!r!)ir
nhr:e
ino
-nrr I r.l -nr
not
hiS
of
privare
hFrrF
rruY!
nrnno
'authorized'
dicta
which
would
find
only
efaborates
Harrison
ir"rltr'l-
n:ft-
Here,
\/
"
the
See
officer
r n
to
standard,
completed
33
required
Georgia
/\'WLilc
aCC
the
Ga.
an
by
The
but
within
the
-ha
beCauSe
npr
he
generaf
Efeventh
act
5e
HaI-r-LSon
when looking
discretiona.ry
to
law,
thaL
have
Lhat,
y.
aulnor1f'y wnen
believe
i ^n^ -./
Lhe Cou.rt finds

on Lhis
found Lhat
was acting
*q
law
(N.D.
was "relegated
under
nne
state
court
Arrar<
an investiqaLion.
of
r.i
.l i e-ror
*8-9
at
-,-,t]-onary
Lhe officer
I oad
-r
rFsrrlt
UODF Lraining
di
the
case directly
federal
thie
citizen"
n'nhr
under
enforcemenL powers -
hic
c^6
al-ad
..'rnevL"Plv
in
l___:____jjj_
2008) .
ied
n
tta'lf
Yeea!!4!e
di e-r'r:L
the
that
artf hOri-"
f lî s
e-
che course
concl uded thar
neveftheless
s.:nne
in
:_:
*6.
urirhin
recognized
courL
Cir.
Lo compfete his
a suspecr
xilJed
/11th
ravrd
/,
2012 wL 529946,
,T r
:-a-l-- _ .l n. a
y
ure
,, 1
Contravenes
/Slor\/.
?n'2\
olficer
he
Lhat the
2:I0-CY-32,
No.
11.
Fch
,a."r\r-
recognizes
rhis
of
defense
!r,q,,qrr+ut.
c7q
S 1?-4-60
po-Lice powers, ne cannot "jnvoke
his
2007 WL 2908220, at
The Court
the
rnn.tnit\/
iet^l
Annv.
.\ jrv rv r. lrr \ r e - n n a n -
A
o
Peterson,
v'L
n.ralif
)6A
a..-,,nrtc
invoke
and
statute]
under O.C.G.A.
acting
citizen
waS
law
at
Circuit
when he
kr'ler-l Avers.") -
violaEed
Id.
at
noc
was
off icer
clearly
quali fied
to
immunicy
use of
because
-Lawon the
however,
unpersuaded by Ayers.
iâ
\.r:e
.^n,-1,'^l inn
:n
nof
t-hi
rho
conflaLes
a r r l -l ^ n r l- tL.r 7l
t--Yqf
^ffi
annrl,r^F
norfnrminn
!vqJ
--
qa^.nd
his
conducr.
rhar
P!!-v-"
r:el.
ThF
h
u La
Lc
q ua. cu S e
na-f nr.rarl
nr^n.r
4yam-Lnes
The Ayers
Lhe officer
under state
law.
is :o protecr
etirelv
n/-\-
to pol ice
aF
the
the officer,
ct.n
given
<nnno
however,
i - / - r " i fr \J/
ar-rinq
inalnrrr
invecf
which are noL lawfully

rri
is
reasoned that
court
Lu!
facc
concluded that. Lhe
esLabfished
Court,
the district
1-h6
ed
entitl
courE fater
deadly
he
force,2e
*10.
This
n
^t
vvr
The disrricr
hi
disrricL
Yec, the very
L J\ /
duties
--.--,.. .s,
ra:cnni
i-LF
inr
rrhcrh^*
fh.r-
jS
l-h^
releVant.
nffirar
aLso dj scounted
not
the
"governmenc otficial"
purpose of
t'government. of f icia.Ls.
"
on
n
r/-\nn
PlvrrY
Of f iCer
"-
in
beha_Lf
discretionary
f,rnnl-
.'
his
Thus. be was
Lhe
f i rqj-
the
court
was no Ionger
taken
Thi
of,
nnl i nc
autho(i
own
rrr
Jv!
the
his
he
irrl-j-ra
! Ll - s L s ^v r a , , l
h 1 / j -h p
who had lost
of f -icers.
:rrrhari
under
iS
r
had
prongs
rwo
it
on
Tn Ayers,
qualified
Thus, the
immunity
re-Iegation of
"'
The Efeventh Circuit
that rhe officer
affirmed
was not entitfed
immunrcy because the r-Leeing suspe.L poscd nc rhrear of harr
ro qua--fieo
or others
a n d t h e u s e o f d e a d l y f o r c e r , r as t h u s c l e a r l y
to the officer
unreasonable
under wel l-e stabl i shed la!./.
Avers v.
Harrison,
506 Fed.
The E.Leventh Circuit
Appx. 883, BB4 (11th Crr. 2013).
did not discuss the
rssue or wheLher rhe oLLice.r was acting wirnin n-is discretionary
t.a-n-ng
qea ir!.
:irl-hori].\.'
The Eleventh Circuit
reversed the district
court on
:a
,.rar^-od
icsra
n'
.InA"vis.r'/
li:hi''r\'
34
1..
1:
aL
aL
BB4-85.
-^
^f Fr^^-
- i t -: ? a n
i q
hi ohl v
r ^ FL: r! I-t 9
Fir-ar
not
JuvJLUu
. - .rj q .
16f
i n-e
arr:l
i fi
a,4
-rz
and
arrfFn-ij-\/-
immrrni
Deaf
had
e.rr:oril- \/ r,/l-en he
shn-
auL.,v!fL/
make
estabLished
ininrr
d 6 f 6 -Lm
"Ltrrrr19
uELs
it
of
righL.
in
the
/^,,^-i
n^
nolic-e
rse
ci rnara rr
the
of
6;e
he was
nn'iCe
naA'
haS
within
his
was actinq
enLitled
nol'
uo
excessive
1985);
see Acoff
19851
(exolainino
t"-'
has
been
officer
that
F.
q/?
Il
186
- q4,
iS
whether
conduct was
(11th
(2004)
in
in
inquiry
his
198
to
clearly
v.
Hamilton
estabfished
Clr'
City
2008)
) .
May 2010 rhat
1s a constitutionaf
viofation.
174 F.2d 1495, 1500-02
(11th cir.
force
Abston,
182,
Appx.
able
estaOlished
he confronted. "'
^ Atlanta,
v.
dlscretlonary
dispositive
-la^-1.',
was clearly
law
his
violated
Deaf
refevanl
Hi"a6n
\7
r -i t r r
p-er.riff
to a reasonable
26L
withln
that
r't /-rhl- ie
situation
ar.\ceF:,.
Here,
Ala.,
Jackson,
A^nn-dinnl.,
rf'a-qf
acting
Wit,ams-
"'The
wherher
wou.Id be clear
unlawfuf
been
showing
substantiaL
as
rrvvvrvJJrYf
he
rc
l^^
powers'
f rr
artrhnri
qual ifieo
of
police
nrr\/ate
Establ ished Right
Clearly
if
his
trr
b.
Even
of
show that
to
burden
his
shield
the
j n r : i r ' l e r f -r
crrhie.-
d r r r i n r - r lL-r h
r ee
vu-trr.:j
mer
q/-.na
fhF
.1f
f 1^F st aT-,ts
ro
to
refevanl
r,'i-hih
d\-
tLrl a
r rJ
rY
u i n il rnr a
because Deal had IosL his
In shorL,
nf
,y tr r . vr y) eer r
,.,il-h^..t-
\J-L I-Lus!
drL
'762
F.2d
1543,
r-*"ni-v
9uaff!rEu
35
!rLu,Lu,, r -j
1.541 (11th
eyisl-q
wharc
Cir.
an
officer
(1)
nhvcia:l
\:r'r
yr '! \L r. o
l r (r ir-F
-v
46:cihra
/\ v. l-r ru Lf r v r^l t i . n
.l l .l Lr --Vr.?r
rrcinn
held
da:ril
rr
F:rr<
F ;- ^ In' iun! !nr 9
\n1ruror l'tl-irfvi ua
j.nt
nar-nnnnl
Moreover,
exception
n
.inPvIrL
l-o
violated,
force
to
v.
Mar.
29,
2013)
rF'1r
.rascl Fw. /
.rrral i !icr-l
I i ohl-
af
that
fhe
Circuit
'that
r/6r\/
-he
the
offi
ciaf
//
t-ha
2013
summary
ntain-i'F-
--"-lv
a narrow
wrret
conduct
the
the
aitv
2Al4 WL 1043631. *7-B
36
onwas
"When an excessive
FOJrth
conduct
entitfed
\/-
rioh+
esrrh'ishcd
of
not
Thonnso-
viewing
d'
n.l-wiihsta'\cii
1s
.n.o- -n-- f l -e e- i-n- - - - s ,
York, Ala',
official's
af
nfficial
-a
-.\
has stated:
-^ra
Elevench
has articufated
.lparlv
Circuit
-reK:lb
\,
must be a case precisely
there
a
^-F\/
Amendment in
(in
once)
1-hp unlawfulneSS
i.rrmrrnirrr
Supp. 2d ---,
officer
-haf
shows
1-he
the
whenever
Fourth
of
r l n a r m o. i U
Oi Ve
the
-lrinsl
d9------
City
is
1993),
f:vorahla
L'hFra
Efeventh
The Eleventh
l-.-)
mnqr
the
force
force
M-Ki
t 1--L.-ir.
serious
wlllsf
i aer
of
of
deadly
OFf
in
Befl
.lef ermi nF
nrnhi hif e. t hal:nn^
M.rp^\'F.
See also
rule
rhe
nl ai nii ff
n
rq lv
v vn
v!r
v grJit l o
/
I )
w a^ -r *I Ir--r-n g
the
(2)
use
blf tnout
h,,shed
threat
-hp
possible
immrrnitrr
rh.'i
\Jl
violates
rhe
/?\
_'.J
1
AA1
!:7J
AIa.
in
to
an officer
f^r.F
(N.D.
'
the
.r-rrita.l
that
WL 1352022
otherS;
srtoPs/
unarmed individuaf.
l,rAamanr
J uulj ",sr I
or
aq-7 9t .,1 1^^.
c\ J â . a
Circuit
poses
^ -^_*^
n-
regarding
some warning
suspect
+l-a officer
r^
-l.\
n
' ra
c e^ !6J q
r qq- a
J 4ri
the
befieves
nd
to
r.tf
lies
Amendtnent
was
the
the
so
readilv
1ar-k
Of
defense
of
---
F.
Ri rminr:har-
(N.D. A1a. Mar.
L4, 20I4)
141
v.
Smlth
F.3d
L41.9 (11th
1416,
Cir.
1997)).
Assuming a jury
' :^*^
rf
-.-.r --
oruJ
^6h6r.l
YUIsfur
nnl
he
can
municipalities
u n c o ns t i - t u t i o n a f
i rv !, r
1 " 9 9 9 ).
in
fhe
of
I
official
and the
v.
Jenne,
connection
policv
can
subi ect
narrow
excepLion.
ParneII,
between
alleged
actions
1360 (1lth
Cir.
when a
in
deliberate
indlfference
37
the
436 U.S.
participate
must be a
supervising
deprivation.
estab]ished
Chief
for
nof
respondeat
there
of
be
rhar
(orve
conduct3o or
the
T,trcr-ke-
personally
consLicuLional
There 1s no allegation
incident .
on
Snr'
use
Claims
1983
to
4r
L93 F.3d 1263, 1269 (LLthl
must either
onaf
fataliv
rqLqf
qual-lfied
bv
t-hi et
rq
under
nF
in
authority
subordinates
Dcn'r
v.
326 E.3d 1352,
resufts
''
the
rr
a I I e o e c l r r nc o n s t i t u t i
connection
t,r
Liability
^--L
a warninq
conduct
shiefded
liable
their
A supervisor
causaf
- r - ro ^f
held
M.'rnal
not
Lf
wr
658, 691 (1978); Hartley

Cir.
is
^ t 3 !rf
be
acts
tuhr rav vn! r) ,r r
Lh is
and Municipal.
Supervisory
JuP!-
pose a grave
not
DeaI had discretionary
s t t n F . v ' r^- ^J r-r r
NFi'he-
-rc:l-.5
hin
rrr,,"
wichi n
comes
i na
Federal
B.
<ttnar
ch/-n-inn
even if
Accordingly,
did
Deal should have issued
J,rvvufrry
Wifliams
s h o o r -i n g
Juys!f
.L 1v
P!aer
Williams
thar
Deal or that
of harm to
risk
fjnds
2003).
This
supervisor's
to
Cottone
causal
custom or
constitutionaf
L u e c k e s o m e n o wp a r r i c i p a l e d
in
r:i ght s .
^r
- r r < t -^ ' r
t,vtru)'
-aused
Count
F.'Fq -har- Chief

for
fiable
t.]PU'r
rhcir
EDPD to
serve
|L L- ê -t l
and
to
af
nn
n
c r h, a, ' no lqr J
Ps
the
n lL- rh: ce, r

v
required
is
there
annual
Ho\,r'ever/ liability
.la:dl
under
irarn
/-lî^'
these
the
lqo
one
of
l-UeCke,
use
of
ltrrbl i-
is
failure
Deal
did
not
ool
to
iCe
f.I. Ce
nOr
deadly
is
fhg
rTpnor-l
Vr.relar
manuaf
that
dispute
circumstances
38
a
a
.laa,'l- \/
nf
of
Dublin
:nd
East
based
a n d m e a n i n gf u l
procedures
fittle
Lr a i n i n g
(nrrc'
r;
essentially
i-a-''rlrnn
n"i,:e-.
East
of
are
Count IVI
In
arrest.
i r ^ o j -h c
is
of f tr:ers
bona f ide
e-.1
r ev Yoqa! vr d
Plaintiff
Williams
of
l.1wrr.t
City
and
claim
here,
ai
"a
officers
And
of
establish
i cqles
Brown,
EasL Dub]in
of
shooting
the
6-6pf jnrr:11rr-rrrrrta
Pfaintiff's
City
that
:o duec rqru|or F F Ll c f J v - a n . l
train.
the
operating
standard
the
that
M c D o w e l - l -v .
powers of
t-ha
r-rll
(3)
and
Amended Complaint.'
ir-e
their
a.lleges
failing
^^l
i^\'
PUIIUY
written
Luecke
without
furcher
for
ljacle
the
nr:r-l-
de.Iiberate
2004).
of
and
the municipality
right;
aI.Leged unlawful
che
r-rrqf om
Plaintiff
,,-i
WJf
and V
IV
his
that
constituted
viofation
392 F.3d 1283, r289 (11th Cir.

In
(2) that
that
the
" (1)
show
constitutional
that
to
indlfference
policy
or
custom
must
on
liability
1983
were violated;
rights
constitutional
had
plaintiff
nuniclpaf.itY/
impose
to
Likewise,
Id.
to
and
haVe
force.
automatic
p\/an
i lf
:n
ql'
i nI t au Jcg J\ 4e c r r r : t e l v
(11th
L349
City
.into contact. "31

(1989) .
such
obvious,
that
subordinares
of
need for
the
l rain
Belcher
notice
"without
particular
'nr
area,
anv
fai
omltted)
sources
a
to
need
ro
f-a'n
on noLice
failure
to
a constitutional
and
Qtrl-az-i
train
or
not
liabIe
is
a municipaLity
by
30 F.3d 1390, 1398-99 (l1ch
Fofey,
of
as
abuse
of
and when the
measures,
379
training
ciryl
for
come
del-iberate
to
i,n the v.iof ati-on of
Cjty
rrre
to
3?8,
489 U.S.
hisrory
in
.h^fhar
,,ej,
supervise
sr)nervlse.
in
as a matter
of
Gold,
"
151 F. 3d
135I.
at
As
officers
jn
Plaintlff
stated,
of
'
ic
on a mu"ri.-pality
^l.l-
<1n.ri^/
not have the

policy
a written
The ElevenLh Circuit

inla.ri^n^1l\,
l^r
wrthouL proot
a
li-.
lifw-,
/asr
lr
regarding
^lîrFill<
'^'6.rinn
inf
,ha
en.lF.l
F . 3 d 1 35 1 n . 1 0 .
39
thaL
that
Lhis
I
policy
sF,.-j
^.
nor exjsc
"higl^ sLandard of
im.^<i^d
liil-,i
ilv
ca"rsed a parricular
yaa^^n/].-+
n,,n,în:li,\/
h\/
the
annual training
U O D Fd i d
fha.:rrsa
chaE a specilic
nrruer
evidence
required
has expla-ned
^nar-rr<
i^^
presented
has
the EDPDdid
U O D Fa n d t h a t
n.^^r
\'
result
of
train
dlfferent
supervisor
(cited
1,994)
Cir.
more or
has puc the
v.
151 F.3d
indifference
amount
exists
to
to
Harris,
when there
correcLive
is likelv
right."
law
as
'tfailure
can
train
need for
when the
indrfference
narq^n/S
Miami,
deliberate
Canton v.
of
to
"Failure
to
of
of persons wir-h whom the police
righrs
che consrirutional
City
The
lmust amountl
.respect
re.Ievant
1998).
Cir.
','i,-r-:J-a.l
of f ice-
See GoId v.
rights.
consriLutionaf
L346,
trained
'
TqRl
"
J P v
c.l.l
r e c -
-11
wi Lhin
hnr,rctar'in
that
..
historV
f h' q n.r rt
':/--rral
sirila-
I rr
nl:,r-i..tq
doF'r-'orcrz
*12-13.
529946, at
Dcfcndan-s
F.
a
4
rlê
annv
af
-}JP^.
h j s-o-v
P84-85-
llnon
h'r
f ha
n:ri
sheriffs
i n i nn
the
of
'/
Id.
"so
at
need
to
oIf
reVerSed
rhal-
nf-i
êre
nf
rhc
jcer
"that
provide
enrreead
had
f l'^-^
\rithin
of
have
additionaL
fL^
Is
known
2n-2
WL
"adequate
and
On
Arza-e
C06
^ "^^^^^
of
Sheriffs'
the
rri r'l,r:I
woufd
or
+L3,
at
-rr'inr
gli<
in
Ar7are
requirementf
Id.
On
She-,f
Avers-
"
Fir-ef
issue
who
DeaI.
of
reasoned that
indi
of
a
u vou . r L n
J rv
fLw
s v.
in
neither
irrrlomenr
an obvious
rr:in:na
result
rheca
.li
f6rca
court
nothing
f i r-cr
notified
th^
the
use-of-force
885.
this
case is
obvious"
to
Moreover.
being
found
Circuit
}/aL
an
oI
no-i-o
abusF
-.t.Lr'-J
E.evenLh
I rr
CirCuLL
af
rrrJrv!l
scyq!
cl -overth
should
this
JS U
u , .num
L'u
a!r vl
--^:*qr
is
ro
nrrc l rr
agorrlJ
use
c,r^h
Luecke
shown
hv
snnken
nrorri
ove-
force
short,
on the part
d e n LLes du
The district
nroviclecl
haq
^r^.r*
Lhe
on che use of
rraining
!-^.r^
in
u!!re4vrrvl
L!q!1r!rr9
has
inî.lanie
l- ha
Fr*h^ri-v
JuPer
--erninn
Tn
COUrt
,-
llt-e
q r r n e r vwi s o r v
\^rh.' lÂ.
annc:l
dj st-iCt
fai
Pro-.,!t--
.nr.F
Ci -r-ttr t
caSe.
Chief
falfs
inadequac.ies would
misconduct
i - h t r F , le v e n r h
-he
r - . t c n rq i r - n -
refevant
of
a history
and
Plaintiff
,v lv cq v: -+ i, 1 r z
6r
v,
evidence
r:if v
these
violations'
constltutional
nor
f r'1ar rhe
esfahlishincr
have been on notlce
rv ,o ^ rLr F- cr fn
Plalntiff's
department
the
not
an exampfe of
warrant
40
liability
a need to
traan
without
prior
?oo
1o
i\ ynr rv nv r r i r 'r luirnr r.Y'
on
Li mi Lations
rs ht r ce
e
v <xl q^rm
r r ynt lve
any
without
firearms
with
use
the
in
training
jn
qh.n-iro-
least
the
found
standard
adequare so
"in
ar
as
not
lqllv"
1985) .
ci-\/
e-'rin.l
on
the
the police
one
case,
ro
rT-q
Elevench
municipality
officer
misconducL resulcing
1a.
2 d 9 4 ' 1,
ro the
has
officer
an
the
rqli+v!
received
Circuic
of
had
2001 and
months prjor
academy cra Lnjng
-r',1^-
DeaI
early
subject
off'cers
He had also
Lhe
at
constitutional
academy in
2 A A 1.
489 U.S.
Here,
force) .
deadly
police
Can"r.^ '.
i,rr:Y.
Canton,
February 2010, three
the absence of pasl
r-\- r-:inino_,,
October of
s o m e U O D Fc r a i n i n g
Tr
o
v rl
of
training
of
at
r e c e j v e d U O D Ft r a i n i n g
additional
See City
violations
constitutionaf
liability
to
from lack
951 (1lth
Cir.
courL recognized:
As rhat
to correct
officials
took no action
To say that
vio1ations
of state faw is far from saying
certain
were deliberately
indifferent
those officj-afs
that
jn respecting citizens'
rights
or grossly negligent
c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
o
f
f
e
nsive
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
tacitly
or
of
violations
Simple failure
to correct
conduct.
to
faw does not equate to an indifference
state
rights.
constitutionaf
rd.
sufficient
deadly
to
the
citizens.
Plaintiff's
sumf
fn
to
force
evidence
show thar
in
the
consticutionaf
any training
in
deficiency
EDPD amounted to
rights
Accordingly,
of
che
Defendants'
4T
this
defiberate
Cit y
is
case
in
the
not
use of
indi-fference
of
East
motion
for
Dublin's
sunmary
judgment
in
state
In
addition
to
per
u
v v ,! vrI rv ! u*r o ' . 1
se,
dprlh.
emotionaf
' I* * " *
employees
sued
of f j ci al
immrrnitv
rorrrri rcrl
hrz
lew,
'nr
Ir ri uev lr ^r r iLIyi l - \ '
r -"
-nn
lrLuLLurrf ry
vr!_LLJ,d_!
duties
in
their
'eq
Fo
j-l^^
^ n n l \ r j -. r
officiafs
official"
aff
iair'l
nrr-pl v
immune
fi m
r tm
u Lr 'rr n
- i-l f- L t r r
r)Fr-
faw.
tÎil- h
training
and supervision
functjon
unde-r Georgia
Ga. App.
382,
385
"Whlfe
malicer
a-
the
or
drrf i-es
individuaf
from
in
and
coUISe
Of
corruption.
//
Ga. App. 156, 156 (L993).
i ^r-irlont
under state
have
officiafs
ni ni s-er.
1 ' n . ' l a r j -a k e n
wjllfulness,
and wirhouc
h:a.l
oI
they
capacities.
are
:-j-q
discrc-i-rr:rrr
rqvlule
that
\. j' vov v
ee
! r rr n m FLn: t
Here, the CourL has al ready esLablished

nf
and batLery.
inl-licLion
claim
indj-vidual
nî
nrrf f is
Schmidt v. Adams, 2II
Defendants
oIJp--uJ
doae
assauLt
l i nor,,
these claims,
immunitv against
officiaf
non
in"entional
arcl
These
distress.
Luecke, solely
ri r rnvaa ul u rr rr rr lv i n a .
imprisonmenL,
-ecrlirerl
asserted
Plalntiff
DeaI and Chief
capaclties,
fa.Ise
a-d
cl-aims,
against
individual
negliqence
of
City
GRlAlilTED.
federal
the
staue Iaw cfaims
their
the
against
cfalms
Laet Claimg
C.
Lhejr
Luecke is
and Chief
East Dubf in
severaf
federal
Plaintiff's
on
\rrre
Accordingly,
!r rar q
y LneFL - l -
l-.\
of police
law.
(2003);
r'^
lonoe-
he is
ahiof
officers
Middlebrooks
Lowe v.
for
that
is
v.
t'olrzernment
a
*
Y"
not
L,ranlzo
purposes
entit.Led to
h r - r r " r c r r cr
r^^
a discretionary
Bibb
Cnty.,
251
Jones llnqy_:, 23L Ga. App.
1,-1t
?J t fJ ?
t\ Ll )qr vgt 8 )
ya..'r+
rv6
q rnn.r--
fL .J
Lr9
JJ|/r'e!
For
mafice.
reasons,
these
l F.l
The
: ^ : i n !cr riJ-
qYu
rv uas:r l
r-l:imq
that
he is
na'r'I
/-rAr-p
to
R:sed
rhc
rnn'r
^
\, r-
,.,-^r^f
wlurlYlur
rrar
qF-
Plaintiff's
I arrn
l-'a'J^nA
Unoe.
I I
and he is
faw
cfaims
-he
narl-'es
oF
analyzing
asserted
ard
to
recrrr'l'|-
:h.]
solTnFnr
an,'J neo-'oan-
ic
Fi-artar(/
eStablish
conduct
-v av l n f
:+
L UF' .m
' rn
J -l u
was
i r-f i.on
wou.Ld not
and
"extreme
trc(,t9t
of
infliction
Ti oYoUn , - aU U /
i n''l
^^^-ai
h
(,
!y
^ nL E L r
state
nenl
record
because the
fcra
federaL
Plaintiff's
DeaI has faiLed
intentlonal
CeorqLa
.aw,
j -
case,
any
1-
I -,.,
emotional-
DISMISSED.
^-r^,.-^^
with
acted
im,'nune from
this
state
Deaf's
that
:-n
.laimS.
hrrcfs
Further/
of
claim
irnri
distress.
rh.if
is
.lo:j-h
Fal se
f i n c l in o
the
that
Luecke
summary judgment on Plaintiff's
to
rr'l
him in
lhaca
in
concfudes
encitfed
^J Ur lLt--q-vrrdv a
u J^ r r c / ,
distresS
.rn
articulated
emotional
srinnort
irrdnnor-
^w rh i e I
A\/;r"lan-a
\z nn
Luecke is
Chief
now turns
1-he a-nl.f
-'-r--
r,,
of
Court
reasons
the
'I
cn'nmarrr
f ^
r]TA
ah.n
L'raL
against
sEare law c-Iaim asserted

6n-il-
iq
fhe-F
Moranr;a--
n^cci
L^,,F.ic
:-r.^la-:h-p
a-rj r..erlw
in
Ca. App. o1c, t5l8 (1gq2).
plaintiff
nt^:rrc-a-.
^f
nust
^-.1
esLabl.ish
q.\
cvf
daâh^r'
a civ:lized
43
that
rad:r.ia^
conrnunir" ,
a defenoanl's
rFr6
D1'6-c
ac
--
.<
!o
-r r- -' -^ --i . , u^ ,s ,
2A4
rv.
(Doc. No. 176) is

is
The Clerk
Iavor
of
Defendant
of
false
of
emotionaf
course
arrest
on
Jeffery
and state
law claim
claim
federaf
l.ar,r rl:imc
oRDER ENTEREDat
Deaf on Plaintiff's
This case will
distress.
summary
GRANTEDIN PART and DENIED IN PART.

of
Defendants
and !{-LIliam Luecke on a-l-l claims,
Plaintiff's
ram:ini
for
motion
t o E N T E R , f I J D G M E N1Tn f a v o r
directed
EasL Dubl in
Ci r-y of
Defendants'
foregoing,
Based upon the

judgment
coNclusroN
a
u .Yr a
u +i rnr q
v r
Augusta,
federal
intentionaf
of
proceed to
of
l-)efcnr]:nl
ceorgla,
trlaf
,lFf ftr\/
/6d
Auqust. 2014.
UNI TED
44
claim
infliction
excessive
tni"
and jn
DISTRICT
in
force
due
and
De;rl -
auv of

Order - MSJ-3

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Order - MSJ-3

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 3:11-cv-00061-DHB-BKE Document 190 Filed 08/18/14 Page 1 of 44

THE IJNITED STATES DISTRICT

Z0ilAUCIB Pft I'

case Law, and the

GRAI.ITEDfN PART and DENIED IN PART f or

[he f o-L-Lowing reasons.

Case 3:11-cv-00061-DHB-BKE Document 190 Filed 08/18/14 Page 2 of 44

BoaE Ramp Road and Buckeye

(Doc. No. L20, Deal- Dep. at

the Anba Food Mart.2

Case 3:11-cv-00061-DHB-BKE Document 190 Filed 08/18/14 Page 3 of 44

between Buckeye and

Deaf saw Wiffiams

onto Marion SLreer.

When Deal reached Daley ScreeL,

DeaI acce-lerated after

rs .uer :kr ror n

Case 3:11-cv-00061-DHB-BKE Document 190 Filed 08/18/14 Page 4 of 44

down Derri,so Lane and turned

ran toward the driver-side

and, wlLh his

the dashboard camera, buL Lhe audio

Deaf immediateLy exited

soon as DeaI turned

Case 3:11-cv-00061-DHB-BKE Document 190 Filed 08/18/14 Page 5 of 44

body near his

<l inhl- lrr

commanded, "Gec on che ground!"

away and ouL of

borh hands on the holsLer-side

*l0l B Buckeye. "

Case 3:11-cv-00061-DHB-BKE Document 190 Filed 08/18/14 Page 6 of 44

PuL your hands ouL."

Deal has made several

Wjll jams's car and attempred to

Thank you, brother.

Buckeye Road, and DeaI

and commanded: "Stay

on what Deal has stated

Case 3:11-cv-00061-DHB-BKE Document 190 Filed 08/18/14 Page 7 of 44

1l-:00,' DeaI Dep. at

Wi11 iams and

(&1. at 6'l, 1I. )

115-16 & Ex.4;

Doc, No. 129, DeaI DecL, S 9.)

Case 3:11-cv-00061-DHB-BKE Document 190 Filed 08/18/14 Page 8 of 44

case he was golng to

over and fought

Lhe head a couple

knocked each other

Deal and Williams

DeaI and Wil-Liams quickly

Deaf grabbed and pushed ['ii]liams

Case 3:11-cv-00061-DHB-BKE Document 190 Filed 08/18/14 Page 9 of 44

^16^^^,,ni -..r ht nntzinq

DeaI has never

rhe gun, backed away,

and, emerging with

DeaL Decl,. tl 9.)

2L'7-20; DeaI Decf.

rr Adnrtced-y, Deal is "noL good wiLn esLimar:ing distances."

Case 3:11-cv-00061-DHB-BKE Document 190 Filed 08/18/14 Page 10 of 44

Doc. No. 47,