Charlotte police officer gets second chance to seek immunity in shooting lawsuit

A federal Appeals Court is giving a Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officer another chance to seek immunity from a lawsuit based on her mistaken shooting of an FBI officer in 2019. The court decided Wednesday to send the case back to a trial judge.

Charlotte officer Heather Loveridge shot FBI Safe Streets Task Force officer Clarence Belton as a law enforcement team attempted to serve a search warrant at a Charlotte home, according to the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals decision.

Belton sued Loveridge and the City of Charlotte. US District Judge Max Cogburn denied Loveridge’s request to have the lawsuit against her thrown out because of her immunity as a police officer.

“The district court concluded that because the facts material to liability were disputed and therefore precluded summary judgment on the merits, the facts material to immunity were also disputed and therefore precluded granting Officer Loveridge immunity,” Appeals Court Judge Paul Niemeyer wrote. “But in doing so, the court failed to conduct the distinct analysis required for determining immunity, which includes identifying the clearly established constitutional right that Officer Loveridge violated either knowingly or because she was plainly incompetent in light of clearly established law.”

“Accordingly, we vacate and remand for further proceedings,” Niemeyer added.

Loveridge and another Charlotte officer joined Belton and three other FBI task force officers on Nov. 1, 2019, when they attempted to execute a search warrant at the Charlotte home of Larry McConneyhead, who was suspected of trafficking methamphetamine.

A fellow FBI officer shot Belton in the arm as officers forced their way into the home, Niemeyer explained. Belton dropped his gun, fell to the ground, and crawled to seek cover.

“When the shots were fired, Officer Loveridge, who was just outside the garage door, fired behind the two exiting TFOs at TFO Belton, who was on the ground, believing that he was McConneyhead,” Niemeyer wrote. “In a single burst, she fired over 10 shots in Belton’s direction in the course of a few seconds. When someone yelled, ‘He’s a cop,’ Officer Loveridge immediately stopped firing. She then called on her radio, ‘10-33, officer down, we need MEDIC now’ and attempted to provide aid to TFO Belton while waiting for the arrival of the medics.”

Belton suffered wounds to both arms “that required several surgeries.” His permanent injuries ended his law enforcement work, Niemeyer wrote.

The Mecklenburg County district attorney decided not to seek charges against Loveridge. The police department’s Internal Affairs Bureau found she had violated a departmental directive on the use of deadly force and recommended her dismissal, according to the court opinion.

Belton pursued a federal excessive force claim against Loveridge, along with state law claims of negligence, assault and battery, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

“Officer Loveridge filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the record established that her conduct was lawful and that she was, in any event, entitled to qualified immunity as to the federal excessive force claim and public officers’ immunity as to the state tort claims,” Niemeyer wrote. “The district court denied her motion, concluding that, on the substantive claims, there were genuine disputes of material fact.”

“It explained that Loveridge and TFO Belton disputed the quality of lighting inside the garage; what Loveridge could see before she shot at Belton; and indeed whether Loveridge had an opportunity to see Belton before the incident occurred,” the Appeals Court opinion continued. “As to qualified immunity, the court observed that ‘[q]ualified immunity does not alter the ordinary rules applicable to summary judgment proceedings,’ and it concluded that ‘a court should deny summary judgment on qualified immunity when a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the circumstances under which the officer … used force against the plaintiff.’”

Yet Cogburn “failed to conduct the established and distinct analysis required” in this type of case, Niemeyer wrote.

“Under the well-established analysis, Officer Loveridge would be entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim unless (1) she violated a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time she acted,” the 4th Circuit explained.

“Thus, in this case, while it is clear that Officer Loveridge did indeed seize Belton when she shot him, the key question is whether that seizure was unreasonable,” Niemeyer wrote. “A court would have to resolve whether the officer’s use of deadly force was objectively unreasonable in the particular circumstances that Officer Loveridge faced.”

A trial judge assessing Belton’s constitutional claim also needs “to determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established,” Niemeyer added.

“Because the district court in this case failed to conduct the immunity analysis, particularly by failing to identify the clearly established right at issue, we vacate the court’s order and remand to enable it to conduct the appropriate analysis,” he explained. “And similarly, because officers are not entitled to public officers’ immunity under North Carolina law if they violate clearly established rights, we likewise vacate and remand the district court’s determination that Officer Loveridge was not entitled to immunity on Belton’s state law claims.”

Judges Stephanie Thacker and Marvin Quattlebaum joined Niemeyer’s decision.

The post Charlotte police officer gets second chance to seek immunity in shooting lawsuit first appeared on Carolina Journal.