Somerset County Warden HENRY v. PURNELL Spanked In Federal Court

On August 5, 2008 Salisbury News did THIS STORY referencing this matter. Below are the court findings in this case. I have inserted just a small portion of the findings but gave a link to allow you to read it in its entirety. Briefly, Purnell shot a man in the back while serving a warrant but claimed he thought it was his taser gun. WHOOPS!

Robert Purnell, a deputy sheriff in Somerset County, Maryland, attempted to execute a warrant for Frederick Henry's arrest. Henry fled on foot and Deputy Purnell gave chase, mistakenly drawing his firearm, instead of his taser, and shooting Henry in the elbow. As a result of this incident, Henry filed a § 1983 suit against Deputy Purnell in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, asserting that Purnell used excessive force in effecting his arrest. The district court ultimately concluded that Deputy Purnell's mistake was reasonable and granted his motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the district court, and remand with instructions.

I do not say, as the majority claims, that there is no room for a qualified immunity analysis in excessive or deadly force cases. My point is, rather, that the inquiries are fundamentally different. Officer Purnell would still be entitled to qualified immunity in this case if his actual conduct were reasonable, even if unlawful, under the circumstances. He could, for instance, argue that he reasonably believed that Henry was dangerous, even though he lacked probable cause to shoot him. Or that he reasonably believed that Garner did not apply to suspects fleeing in the specific manner in which Henry fled. But he cannot successfully argue that his intended conduct would have been legal, given that his failure to do that which he intended was objectively unreasonable. Accepting this argument requires us to extend qualified immunity to the “plainly incompetent.” See Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions by published opinion. Judge Agee wrote the majority opinion, in which Senior Judge Siler joined. Judge Gregory wrote a dissenting opinion.

GO HERE to read the findings in this case.