Excessive force case against Albany police will go to trial

This police misconduct case was cleared for trial by the district court, but the police officers took their arguments to the Court of Appeals, claiming they are entitled to qualified immunity. That is one of the few ways you can appeal a pre-judgment trial court ruling in the federal system: arguing that qualified immunity attaches and the defendant police officers are immune from suit. Here, the excessive force claim will go to trial, but the false arrest is dismissed on immunity grounds.

The case is Williams v. City of Albany, a summary order issued on November 13. If disputed factual issues make it impossible for the trial court to grant the officers qualified immunity, then the district court's ruling cannot be appealed. What will happen at trial is the jury will tell the trial court what happened factually and the trial court will then determine if those facts entitle the officers to immunity. Here, disputed fact issues about the excessive force will have to be sorted out by the jury. In this case, officer Olsen shot plaintiff Williams, who claims the gunshot was excessive. But the facts are disputed at this point. Here's why:

the parties dispute the following facts, among others: whether Williams was holding a weapon in his hand such that it would have been visible to the officers at any point during the pursuit, ignored Detective Olsen’s instructions to get on the ground and drop the weapon, and ran toward Detective Olsen at any point. On appeal, the parties also continue to dispute the distance between Detective Olsen and Williams when Detective Olsen shot Williams.

While that claim will go to trial, the false arrest claim will not. The officers are entitled to qualified immunity on that claim. Here is how the Court of Appeals (Lohier, Nardini and Robinson) summarizes the evidence:

Here, it is undisputed that Appellants had knowledge of a 911 call in which a witness reported that a man wearing a “grey hoodie and dark faded jeans,” who had a gun, “was threatening people” outside of a store “and threw glass and water bottles at the front door” of the store. It is also undisputed that Williams matched the physical description of the suspect; that Williams was seen by the officers on a street corner near the store shortly after the 911 call; that Williams ran away when the officers approached him; that the officers later learned before arresting Williams that the store owner and another store employee each made a statement to police that the suspect flashed a gun and told the store owner that he would “put a burner in [him]”; and that the store owner later identified Williams in a photo lineup as the suspect.

These undisputed facts gave the police arguable probable cause to arrest Williams. While the Fourth Amendment says you need probable cause to arrest, in the qualified immunity equation, arguable probable cause is enough to avoid a lawsuit. This gives the police some room for error and immunizes them from suit unless the probable cause violation is obvious.