The U.S. Supreme Court decided on Jan. 27 not to hear an appeal from a Maryland father on behalf of his son who was injured in a police shooting.
The case deals with qualified immunity, a rule created by the courts that shields government officials, including police officers, from individual liability unless the wrongdoer violated a clearly established right.
Civil libertarians have become increasingly critical of the qualified immunity legal doctrine in recent years, which they say allows government officials to escape liability for sometimes egregious wrongdoing.
The police knocked on the front door and detected activity in the home, but the knock was not answered.
The police forced entry, saw Gaines sitting with a shotgun and left the residence to seek backup. When extra officers arrived, Courtney exited the home peacefully, accompanied by his daughter. Gaines remained in the home with Kodi, her then-5-year-old son. The police deemed this situation a hostage-taking incident, the petition said.
The attending officers then discovered that Gaines suffered from mental illness and was off her medication, according to the petition.
The police at the scene, now comprising more than 30 officers and counter-snipers, took up positions at the apartment building for six hours while Gaines stayed with Kodi on the floor of the living room.
Police Cpl. Royce Ruby said he could see the barrel of the shotgun and took a “head shot” at a target he thought was Gaines. He acknowledged at trial that he believed “there’s a possibility” the bullet might hit Kodi, the petition said.
The bullet ended up penetrating drywall, hitting Gaines, ricocheting off a refrigerator, and striking Kodi’s cheek.
Ruby shot Gaines another three times, which led to her death. Kodi’s elbow was also hit by one of Ruby’s bullets. The child underwent surgery to extract bullet fragments from his face and needed reconstructive surgery on his elbow.
Kodi’s father, Corey Cunningham, sued in state court on his son’s behalf, citing 42 U.S. Code Section 1983, a federal statute that allows individuals to sue the government for civil rights violations, according to the petition.
The trial judge instructed the jury to decide if Ruby’s decision to take the first shot was “objectively reasonable” but did not ask the jury to decide if the action “shocked the conscience,” the petition said.
The jury held that taking the first shot was not objectively reasonable and awarded Kodi $32.8 million in damages plus $23,542 for medical expenses.
A year later, the trial court vacated the jury verdict, determining that Ruby was entitled to qualified immunity.
The Appellate Court of Maryland reversed the trial court, returning the case to the trial court for reconsideration of damages.
The trial court then found that Kodi did not have a valid 1983 claim under the 14th or Fourth Amendments. Kodi’s father appealed and the Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed, holding that Kodi had given up his 14th Amendment claim, or in the alternative that Ruby was entitled to qualified immunity.
The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed on June 25, 2024.
Baltimore County had urged the U.S. Supreme Court to dismiss the petition, arguing that the Supreme Court of Maryland correctly decided the issues involved.
It is doubtful that Kodi’s due process rights were violated when he was “unintentionally” shot during the hostage-taking incident or that a “clearly established” right was violated, according to the brief.
“There is no question that the shooting is tied to several legitimate law enforcement purposes, among them to safely end the hostage standoff and barricade with a mentally ill and dangerous suspect,” the brief said.
In the petition, Cunningham urged the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case “to clarify the law in this area.”
Ruby’s conduct was “unlawful” and “so extreme as to be utterly indefensible.”
The officer “did not need to shoot to protect himself or anyone else, and he did not need to shoot to prevent a suspect from escaping,” the petition said.
The Epoch Times approached Cunningham’s attorney, Richard Simpson of Wiley Rein in Washington, and Baltimore County attorney Dorrell Brooks in Towson, Maryland, for comment on the new ruling.
No replies were received by publication time.
