SMB&P’s Government Entities group recently obtained summary judgment in favor of a police officer who was required to use force in an attempt to detain an individual experiencing a mental health emergency. Police were contacted by members of the individual’s family after he exhibited signs of mental instability over several days. Officers attempted to make contact with the individual and themselves witnessed mentally unstable behavior. Later, officers conducted a traffic stop of a vehicle the individual was riding in as a passenger for the purpose of taking him to the hospital for mental health treatment. Another police officer, who was the department’s K-9 handler, was separately dispatched to the scene of the traffic stop. During stop, the individual exited the vehicle and began walking away from the officers. At the same time, the driver of the vehicle informed the officers that the individual had a gun and an officer asked the driver if he had been stabbed. As the individual continued walking away from the officers, they ordered him to stop, but he did not comply. The K-9 handler then released the K-9 in an effort to get the individual to stop. This was ineffective, and the individual continued to walk away toward a busy intersection and nearby businesses. The K-9 officer then moved towards the individual and took him to the ground. The individual then drew a revolver from his waistband and some of the officers fired their duty weapons.  The individual’s Estate filed suit making several claims against the officers and the police department, including claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the K-9 handler violated the individual’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure and detention by releasing the police dog and taking the individual to the ground. SMB&P Partner Katie Barbiere represented the K-9 handler and filed a motion for summary judgment on his behalf. In ruling on the motion, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio found that the officer knew the other officers were trying to detain the individual to take him to a hospital for mental health treatment. Further, based on what occurred as the individual exited the vehicle, the court found the officer had a reasonable basis for believing the individual had a gun on his person and may have just stabbed the driver. Knowing this, and seeing the individual continue to walk away from the scene toward a busy intersection and nearby businesses, the court found that a reasonable officer would see the individual as a growing and imminent threat to the officers and other people in the area. As a result, the court ruled that in the totality of these circumstances, the officer’s actions did not constitute an excessive use of force in violation of the Fourth Amendment as a matter of law and that he was entitled to qualified immunity. The court dismissed the Estate’s claims and entered judgment in favor of the officer. The court’s decision can be viewed here.