Sampson v. Gilmere

Background

On New Year’s Day, 1980, Atlanta officers responded after Thomas Patillo reportedly threatened a van driver with a gun. Officer Sampson and another officer confronted Patillo at his home, and after Patillo resisted and tried to flee he was escorted out by force. Witnesses said officers began hitting Patillo; he broke free, grabbed for another officer’s gun, lunged toward Officer Sampson, and was shot twice and killed. Patillo’s sister sued on her own behalf and for his estate under a federal civil-rights law, and a federal trial judge found the officers violated Patillo’s rights and awarded damages.

Reasoning

The appeals process produced conflicting rulings. A three-judge panel said state tort remedies barred federal relief, but the full Eleventh Circuit sitting en banc reversed and upheld the damages award. The en banc court reasoned that the case involved substantive constitutional violations: excessive force that deprived Patillo of life and an unconstitutional seizure under the Court’s decision about deadly force against nonviolent suspects. The appeals court rejected the idea that available state lawsuits alone should prevent a federal claim here. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, though one Justice would have taken it up.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court denied review, the appeals court’s ruling and the damages award remain in place. That leaves open the possibility that families can seek federal money damages when officers use lethal force they deem unconstitutional, even if state tort lawsuits also exist. The denial also leaves unresolved a disagreement among appeals courts about when an officer who increased danger can later use deadly force.

Dissents or concurrances

Chief Justice Burger, joined by Justice O’Connor, dissented from the Court’s denial and would have granted review to resolve conflicts with other circuits and this Court’s earlier deadly-force decisions.