11th Circuit tosses suit from Atlanta cops who shot students with Tasers in 2020 protests

ATLANTA (CN) — An 11th Circuit panel tossed a lawsuit on Thursday from three Atlanta police officers who faced charges after video showed them pulling two college students from a car in traffic and firing a Taser at them during a protest against police brutality.

In a unanimous opinion, the circuit judges sided with a lower court’s decision to dismiss the officers’ claims for not establishing a plausible cause of action against any of the defendants, who they also found were entitled to immunity.

Officers Mark Gardner, Ivory Streeter, and Lonnie Hood were tasked with enforcing a curfew declared by former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms following protests in response to the death of George Floyd on May 30, 2020.

While on patrol shortly after the curfew took effect, the officers encountered a vehicle on the streets. After the driver — 22-year-old Messiah Young — refused multiple requests to exit the car and attempted to flee the scene, the situation escalated, eventually resulting in Streeter and Gardner using their Tasers on Young and 20-year-old passenger Teniyah Pilgrim.

Video footage quickly circulated, showing the officers shattering the car window and forcibly pulling the two college students from their car in traffic after another officer was heard telling the driver to keep moving.

The next morning, Atlanta Police Chief Erika Shields terminated Streeter and Gardner, citing their supposed use of excessive force during that encounter. Officer Hood was suspended from the force that day and terminated 10 days later.

Within 61 hours of the incident, the officers were arrested on several charges, ranging from aggravated assault to violation of oath by a public officer.

The Atlanta Civil Service Board eventually overturned each officer’s termination, finding that the dismissals were made in violation of applicable procedures and without due process. A special counsel’s investigation later concluded that the officers, on the fateful evening of the incident, “were acting within the lawful scope of their authority and their actions were reasonable and in accordance with the law," and they were never prosecuted for any of the charged offenses.

In July 2021, the officers sued Atlanta and its mayor, police chief, and district attorney, claiming their actions at the protest were not criminal — and that they were fired without adequate notice or a hearing and arrested without probable cause.

“Bottoms, as mayor, had the authority to ‘direct’ and ‘supervise’ the police department. In turn, Shields, as police chief, was empowered to administer ‘corrective and disciplinary action,’ including ’termination,’ against members of the force,” U.S. Circuit Judges Robert Luck, Elizabeth Branch, and Barbara Lagoa wrote in a per curiam ruling.

“Bottoms and Shields also acted ’through means that were within [their] power to utilize.’ Bottoms was certainly authorized to communicate with her department heads about this matter, and each of the officers was terminated pursuant to the city’s procedures for taking adverse personnel actions,” the judges added.

The circuit panel shot down the officers’ argument that former Atlanta District Attorney Paul Howard should not receive immunity because he was not acting within his “prosecutorial capacity” when he viewed body camera footage before prosecuting the officers.

“But Howard’s mere review of the evidence falls squarely within the scope of his prosecutorial duties,” the judges wrote.

In their suit, the officers also claimed they were defamed in the media and their reputations were irreparably harmed after Bottoms, Shields, and Howard “capitalized on the political zeitgeist” in several media appearances by publicizing their roles in effectuating the officers’ terminations and arrests.

They argued that public statements are not shielded because they served no purpose relating to their government duties. The 11th Circuit disagreed, writing that “a prosecutor’s public statements about a case he intended to prosecute fall within the scope of his employment and are generally entitled to qualified immunity.”

The circuit judges also concluded that the officers failed to cite any factual allegations to suggest that Bottoms and Shields acted with malice and deliberately intended to do wrong when they terminated the officers and made public comments about it.

Attorneys for the officers did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Follow @Megwiththenews