Mark Hanneman, Minneapolis Police Officer, et al. v. Karen Wells, as Co-Trustee for the Next of Kin of Amir Rahkare Locke, et al.

Officer Mark Hanneman was assigned to serve a noknock warrant to investigate the robbery and murder of a man killed by a body-armor-piercing bullet. The suspects were known to have committed other violent crimes and were recently pictured with a cache of guns. During the warrant entry, Officer Hanneman encountered Amir Locke who, despite being ordered to show his hands several times, concealed himself under a blanket and grabbed a gun. Body worn camera video shows that Locke raised and pointed his gun towards Officer Hanneman. Less than one second before Officer Hanneman fired his weapon, the Eighth Circuit described the video as showing “the barrel of a gun appearing from under Locke’s blanket with the barrel angled close to horizontal” as Officer Hanneman was nearby. The district court held that Officer Hanneman “faced a ‘split-second’ decision” and it was not feasible to issue a warning before firing. But the district court denied Officer Hanneman qualified immunity from a Fourth Amendment claim because Respondents alleged Locke kept his gun pointed down, not in the direction of officers, and was shot “as he began” to comply with the last officer order to show his hands. The Eighth Circuit, citing this alleged fact dispute, dismissed the qualified immunity appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Neither court addressed Petitioners’ repeated legal argument that, even if accepted as true, Respondents’ allegations do not render Officer Hanneman’s force to be unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances or unlawful under clearly established law. The questions presented are: 1. When the Respondents’ own factual allegations, the facts assumed by the courts, and the undisputedly