Baskin v. Martinez

• Decision Date: 09 July 2020
• Docket Number: 081982,A-70 September Term 2018
• Parties: Bryheim Jamar BASKIN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Rafael MARTINEZ, City of Camden and Scott Thompson, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

243 N.J. 112

233 A.3d 475

Bryheim Jamar BASKIN, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.Rafael MARTINEZ, City of Camden and Scott Thompson, Defendants-Appellants.

A-70 September Term 2018

081982

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued January 7, 2020

Decided July 9, 2020

Timothy J. Galanaugh, Assistant City Attorney, argued the cause for appellants (Michelle Banks-Spearman, Camden City Attorney, attorney; Timothy J. Galanaugh, on the briefs).

Paul R. Melletz argued the cause for respondent (Gerstein, Grayson, Cohen & Melletz, attorneys; Paul R. Melletz, Mt. Laurel, on the brief).

JUSTICE ALBIN delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this Section 1983 civil rights lawsuit, plaintiff Bryheim Jamar Baskin claims that a justifiable police chase ended in an unjustifiable police shooting -- the use of excessive force in violation of the Federal Constitution. The issue before us is whether defendant Detective Rafael Martinez, who chased and eventually shot Baskin, is entitled to qualified immunity and therefore dismissal of the lawsuit on summary judgment.

On the summary judgment record before us, certain facts are undisputed. The police gave chase to twenty-year-old Baskin after he crashed his car into an unmarked patrol vehicle occupied by Detective Martinez. Baskin fled on foot armed with a handgun, which he discarded out of Martinez's sight. Then, Baskin found himself trapped in a walled yard with no way to escape. At this point, the accounts given by Baskin and a neighborhood eyewitness, on the one hand, and Detective Martinez, on the other, starkly diverge.

According to Baskin and the eyewitness, Baskin put his hands above his head and turned toward the pursuing police officer. His palms were open. He held no weapon in his hand. He made no gesture that he was reaching for a weapon and, at that moment, he posed no threat. Baskin and the eyewitness state that while Baskin's hands were in the air in a sign of surrender, Detective Martinez shot him in the abdomen, causing serious and permanent injuries.

In contrast, Detective Martinez asserts that when Baskin finally came into sight, Baskin turned and pointed in the detective's direction an object that looked like a gun. Only then, fearing for his life, says Detective Martinez, did he discharge his weapon. Although no handgun was found where Baskin fell, two cell phones were located nearby.

Despite those disputed facts, the trial court granted Detective Martinez qualified immunity and dismissed Baskin's Section 1983 action. A split three-judge Appellate Division panel reversed and reinstated the case. Based on the dissent in the Appellate Division, the issue of whether Detective Martinez is entitled to qualified immunity comes to us on an appeal as of right. N.J. Const. art. VI, § 5, ¶ 1 (b); R. 2:2-1(a)(2).

We now affirm the Appellate Division majority. At the summary judgment stage, in deciding the issue of qualified immunity, our jurisprudence requires that the evidence be viewed in the light most favorable to Baskin. Therefore, for summary judgment purposes, we must accept as true the sworn deposition testimony of Baskin and the independent eyewitness, who both stated that Baskin's hands were above his head, in an act of surrender, when Detective Martinez fired the shot. Under that scenario, a police officer would not have had an objectively reasonable basis to use deadly force. The law prohibiting the use of deadly force against a non-threatening and surrendering suspect was clearly established, as evidenced by cases in jurisdictions that have addressed the issue. Thus, Detective Martinez was not entitled to qualified immunity on summary judgment.

The disputed issues of material fact -- whether Detective Martínez's use of deadly force was objectively reasonable -- are for a jury to resolve, not for a court. Accordingly, we remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I.

A.

In this action brought primarily under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Baskin alleges that Detective Martinez shot him in the stomach while he was unarmed and in the act of "surrendering" -- "standing with his hands up in the air facing" the detective. In the complaint, Baskin claims that the shooting constituted excessive force in violation of his federal constitutional rights and names as defendants Detective Martinez, the Chief of Police of the Camden Police Department, and the City of Camden. The Section 1983 claim against the chief of police and the city is premised on their alleged failure to provide training and supervision on "the lawful use of an officer's service revolver."¹

At the completion of discovery, Detective Martinez moved for summary judgment, asserting that his use of deadly force, under all the circumstances, was objectively reasonable, and therefore he was entitled to qualified immunity. Although in deciding the issue of qualified immunity on summary judgment the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to Baskin, we present here a more fulsome account of the critical events based on the deposition testimony in the summary judgment record.

Certain facts are essentially undisputed. In the afternoon of September 11, 2012, Detective Martinez and other Camden police officers were on patrol in unmarked vehicles in an area in Camden known for significant drug activity. When officers observed Baskin pull out of a parking lot without signaling, one unmarked patrol vehicle maneuvered in front of Baskin's car for the purpose of making a motor vehicle stop. To assist the stop, Detective Martinez, who was in uniform, positioned his unmarked vehicle behind Baskin's. With unmarked police cars in front of and behind him, Baskin suddenly put his car in reverse and collided into Martinez's vehicle.² Baskin fled on foot with a handgun tucked in the waistband of his shorts as the officers pursued him, with Martinez yelling a number of times, "police, stop." Martinez followed close behind as Baskin raced through a residential area and leapt over several fences.

During the chase, Martinez saw Baskin drop the handgun, pick it up, and continue to run with the gun in his hand. At that point, Martinez slowed to unholster his weapon. Baskin eventually ran into a walled-in backyard of a residence, where, out of Martinez's sight, he tossed the gun, which landed in the rear of the yard.

Cornered, with no apparent means of escape, Baskin ended his flight. What occurred immediately afterward is the subject of dispute.

According to Baskin, when he reached the walled-in backyard and realized he had nowhere to go, he placed his empty hands over his head and remained in that position as Detective Martinez rounded the corner of the house and saw "[him] with [his] hands in the air." Baskin believed that his raised hands signaled that he was surrendering, so he said nothing as Detective Martinez came into sight.³ The only objects on his person were two cell phones in the pocket of his shorts. Baskin states that, despite keeping his open hands over his head and making no threatening gesture, Detective Martinez shot him in the abdomen, causing grievous and permanent injuries.

Cherron Johnson, an area resident, witnessed the events and corroborated Baskin's account of the last moments of the chase. In her deposition testimony, Johnson stated that she had just arrived home and had stepped out of her car and was talking with a friend when she saw Baskin running with Detective Martinez in pursuit. She explained that when Baskin ran behind the house and reached the wall, he placed his empty hands in the air, and then Detective Martinez shot him. As Johnson described it, Baskin "put his hands up and he turned around. And when he turned around, ... he just got shot." At one point in her deposition testimony, she stated that Baskin had completely turned around with his hands in the air when Martinez fired the shot,⁴ and, at another point, she indicated that "it happened so fast, I'm not sure if he was in the middle of turning around. I know his hands [were] in the air, and you could see him turning around." (emphasis added). She added, "I really didn't think it was right what happened .... I just know that I don't think he should have shot the boy."

Detective Martinez gave a very different account from Baskin and Johnson. In his testimony, he explained that, during the chase, he lost sight of Baskin, whom he had last seen carrying a handgun. After carefully and slowly rounding the corner of a home until he gained a full view of the backyard, Martinez observed Baskin standing with his back facing the detective. Martinez stated that Baskin was turning around with his right arm extended straight in front of him, pointing toward Martinez a black object that he believed to be a gun. At that moment, Martinez explained, "I was in fear for my life, and I pulled the trigger and I hit him in the abdomen area."

Immediately afterward, several officers arrived at the scene and retrieved two cell phones near where Baskin fell. Elsewhere in the yard, the officers found a semiautomatic handgun, loaded with eleven hollow-point bullets. Baskin was taken by ambulance to a nearby hospital where he was treated for serious and permanent injuries.⁵

B.

Despite that conflicting testimony, the trial court afforded Detective Martinez qualified immunity and granted summary judgment in his favor, dismissing Baskin's Section 1983 action.⁶ The trial court highlighted Detective Martinez's likely perceptions during the chase. Detective Martinez knew that he was pursuing a suspect with a gun and had a right "to protect himself against someone who was known to be armed." In the court's view, even if it were to disregard Martinez's belief that Baskin had an object in his hand, "the fact that [Baskin], when confronted in that alley by the officer, turned towards the officer" entitled Detective Martinez to "qualified immunity." The court concluded that Martinez had an objectively reasonable basis for using deadly force under those circumstances. The court commen...