BlogLine

Eleventh Circuit upholds district court’s grant of immunity to police officer in ‘mistaken identity’ case

4/22/25

By: Ashley Boyes Hetzel

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court’s grant of immunity to a police officer who fatally shot a Good Samaritan during an active shooting situation.

On Thanksgiving 2018, several gunshots rang out at a mall in Birmingham, Alabama. Police Officer David Alexander and his partner were on foot patrol when the shooting broke out. Within five seconds of hearing the initial gunshots, one of the officers saw a man, later identified as Emantic Bradford, with a gun in his hands moving toward two men. The police officer shot and killed Mr. Bradford without issuing a verbal warning. Later, it was determined that Mr. Bradford was legally authorized to carry a firearm pursuant to a permit issued under Alabama law and was moving toward the gunshots in an attempt to assist two individuals lying on the ground. 

Mr. Bradford’s mother filed suit against the officer and the City of Hoover setting forth Fourth Amendment claims 42 U.S.C. 1983 and negligence and wantonness claims under Alabama law. The district court dismissed the state law claims under Rule 12(b)(6) and granted summary judgment against Plaintiff on the 1983 claims.

The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the police officer’s use of deadly force under the objective reasonableness standard as outlined in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, (1989), which requires “a careful balancing of the nature and quality of the intrusion on [an individual’s] Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake.” Reasonableness is assessed “from the perspective of a ‘reasonable officer on the scene.’” Cantu v. City of Dothan, Ala., 974 F.3d 1217, 1229 (11th Cir. 2020) (quoting Graham, 490 U.S. at 396).

The plaintiff asserted that the district court improperly granted summary judgment in favor of the police officer because the officer lacked probable cause to believe Mr. Bradford presented a serious or deadly threat, and there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether a verbal warning was feasible.

When analyzing the reasonableness of a police officer, the Eleventh Circuit noted that the proper analysis looks at the reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight, allowing for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving. Further, the court noted that the shooting at the mall was a serious crime, and given the short amount of time available to the police officer, he reasonably perceived the deceased man to be the shooter. In their view, the police officer was forced to make a split-second judgment, and to a reasonable officer under the circumstances, the deceased man was not a fleeing non-dangerous suspect in a non-violent crime. 

As to the need for a prior warning, the court noted it previously declined to set an inflexible rule that, in order to avoid civil liability, an officer must always warn their suspect before firing, particularly where such a warning might easily cost the officer their life.  When looking at the specific circumstances at play, the court concluded that the proximity of the danger to the officers or others and the time available to the officer weighed in favor of the police officer.   

The Eleventh Circuit concluded by stating that the police officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment when he fatally shot Mr. Bradford, and that the shooting was undoubtedly tragic but under governing precedent, it was not unconstitutional.   

This case holds with long-standing precedent that courts will review case-by-case details to determine whether a police officer’s actions were reasonable but are firm in reviewing an officer’s actions based on what is known to them at the time.  As such, there remains some level of uncertainty with any case involving an officer’s request for immunity.   

For any questions or further clarification, please contact  Ashley Boyes Hetzel at ashley.hetzel@fmglaw.com or your local FMG attorney. 

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and are not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.