The United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a summary judgment obtained by SMB&P’s Government Entities group in favor of a police K-9 handler accused of using excessive force while attempting 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 stopped 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 driver of the vehicle informed the officers that the individual had a gun.  At the same time, the individual exited the vehicle and began walking away from the officers toward a busy intersection with open businesses. The officers 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, however, and the individual continued to walk toward the intersection and 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. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted the motion and the plaintiff appealed.  The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the K-9 officer’s decision to release his dog, and his subsequent decision to attempt a takedown maneuver, were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.  The court reasoned that the individual did have a mental condition that might lead him to pose a danger and that the force used was “reasonably necessary” to address that danger.  The court ruled the officer’s conduct during this tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving situation was reasonable given his knowledge of the individual’s conduct prior to the stop and the individual’s actions during the stop. As a result, the court ruled that the officer’s actions did not constitute an excessive use of force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court’s decision can be viewed here.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently affirmed a judgment in favor of local police officers obtained by SMB&P’s Government Entities team in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. After local church replaced its minister, the elders feared controversy at the next Sunday service. They hired officers of a local police department to provide an off-duty security detail to be present at the service. The elders’ fears came to pass when the ousted preacher showed up at the service and addressed the congregation. The erstwhile minister sued the elders, but also included claims against the detail officers and the Chief of Police for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on alleged unreasonable seizure and infringement of the right to free exercise of religion and for civil conspiracy under § 1983 and state law. SMB&P Partner Katie Barbiere obtained summary judgment in favor of the police defendants in the district court.  The former pastor filed an appeal. In a published opinion, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the officers did not unreasonably seize the minister and did not interfere with his free exercise of religion. The Sixth Circuit also ruled the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the preacher’s civil rights claims. As there was no underlying constitutional violation, the court also affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the conspiracy claims. Ms. Barbiere argued the case before the Sixth Circuit and SMB&P attorney Jay Patton assisted with the appellate briefing. The Sixth Circuit’s Opinion is viewable here.

SMB&P has been named to the 2023 Tier 1 U.S. News “Best Law firms in Cincinnati for Commercial Litigation, Medical Malpractice Law – Plaintiffs, and Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs.

SMB&P is excited to announce that the firm will be adding Jim Barbiere as an associate attorney beginning February 15, 2021. Jim has been an Assistant Prosecutor with the Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office since 2017, where he has defended County employees and officials in civil lawsuits in state and federal court. Jim will be a valuable asset to SMB&P and its clients now and in the future.

SMB&P represented a grandmother seeking to adopt her granddaughter without the consent of the child’s biological mother. SMB&P successfully argued that the mother’s consent to the adoption was not required due to the mother’s failure, after notice and a hearing, and without justifiable cause, to have more than de minimus contact with the child in the year preceding the adoption. A copy of the Twelfth District Court of Appeals’ opinion affirming the decision of the Warren County Probate Court can be viewed here: https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/12/2019/2019-Ohio-3055.pdf