Excessive force case will proceed against officer who shot unarmed robbery suspect

An excessive force claim against a Fort Wayne police officer who shot an unarmed robber will continue after the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana denied the officer’s motion for summary judgment.

The case of Anthony Gant v. City of Fort Wayne, et al., 1:16-cv-380 began in August 2015, when Fort Wayne Police officers Daniel Hartman, Bradley Griffin and Jason Palm responded to a report of an armed robbery at a local Dollar General Store. When the officers arrived on the scene, the first suspect, Christopher Johnson, ran through the front entrance and ignored commands to stop and get on the ground. The second suspect, Anthony Gant, followed closely behind him.  

Griffin and Palm testified that they turned their attention to Johnson, who continued to flee, while Hartman ordered Gant to the ground. Hartman testified he feared for his life because he believed Gant was holding a handgun, so he fired two shots, one of which hit the suspect in the abdomen.

Griffin called an ambulance, but would not let the first responders treat Gant until the scene had been secured. Thus, about six minutes passed from the time Griffin called the ambulance to the time emergency personnel began to administer aid.

When it was later discovered that Gant was not in possession of a handgun, he filed suit against Hartman, alleging the excessive use of deadly force. Hartman moved for summary judgment, but Chief Judge Theresa Springmann denied that motion in a Friday opinion.

In her opinion, Springmann wrote that because it was determined that Gant did not have a gun, a reasonable juror could conclude he was in the process of obeying Hartman’s commands to get down, but did not have an opportunity to follow through on those commands before he was shot. Thus, there is a genuine issue of material fact that precludes summary judgment on the excessive force claim.

Similarly, Springmann determined Hartman was not entitled to qualified immunity because “where there is a question of fact regarding whether the use of deadly force is justified, a defendant is not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity.” However, the chief judge found Griffin was entitled to summary judgment on Gant’s claim of denial of medical care stemming from the delay in aid.

“Defendant Griffin was faced with a crime scene, and it had not yet been determined whether there were remaining, armed suspects that presented a threat to all parties involved,” she wrote. “Thus, even if a jury were to find that Defendant Griffin’s actions were objectively unreasonable, the Court cannot say that the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the circumstances were so ‘clearly established’ that a reasonable police officer would have known that such actions would violate the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.”

The district court judge also granted summary judgment to Griffin and Palm on Gant’s failure to intervene claim, finding that because the officers were focused on Johnson – and because only a little more than two seconds passed from the time when the suspects ran out of the Dollar General and when Hartman opened fire – they did not have an opportunity to warn Hartman that Gant was not armed.

Finally, the chief judge ruled in favor of the City of Fort Wayne on Gant’s failure to train claim, writing that even if a jury finds Hartman’s actions violated Gant’s constitutional rights, one constitutional violation could not establish the presence of an unconstitutional city policy. She also denied the robber’s request for punitive damages, finding he failed to prove Hartman acted with “evil intent.”