City of Jackson v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 28 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2020-CA-00318-SCT |
| Parties | The CITY OF JACKSON, Mississippi v. Melanie JOHNSON and Pamela Harrion, Individually as Next Friends of Monica Harrion, Karla Lewis, Samuel Harrion, Jr. and Angela Harrion, Collectively Being the Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Ruth Helen Harrion |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: JAMES RICHARD DAVIS, JR., LEE DAVIS THAMES, JR., Jackson, JAMES ANDERSON, JR., Ridgeland, LASHUNDRA JACKSON-WINTERS
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: DENNIS C. SWEET, III, DENNIS CHARLES SWEET, IV, Jackson
BEFORE KITCHENS, P.J., BEAM AND ISHEE, JJ.
¶1. In the early morning hours of July 15, 2014, Alonzo Stewart broke into the home of Ruth Helen Harrion where he brutally raped and murdered her. Shortly before the attack, Harrion had called 911 and reported that a prowler was around her home in Jackson, Mississippi. The 911 dispatcher did not instruct her to remain on the line as required by the City of Jackson's written policies and procedures. Two City of Jackson police officers responded to the residence and conducted a perimeter check, but they did not detect that the prowler had entered through a window. After failing to make contact with Ruth Harrion, they left. Her body was discovered by one of her adult children the next day.
¶2. Melanie Johnson and Ruth Harrion's other wrongful death beneficiaries (Johnson) sued the City of Jackson, the 911 operator, and the investigating officers. Johnson asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA). The trial court granted summary judgment to the 911 operator and to the officers on the ground of qualified immunity, but it denied summary judgment to the City. The § 1983 case was tried before a jury and, simultaneously, the MTCA case was tried before the bench. The jury found that the City had violated Ruth Harrion's constitutional due process rights under § 1983 and awarded $1 million in damages. The trial court awarded $500,000 in damages under the MTCA.
¶3. The City appeals, arguing that no genuine issues of material fact existed on Johnson's § 1983 claim and that it was entitled to a directed verdict on that claim. The City argues also that the trial court erroneously allowed an expert to testify about Stewart's out-of-court statements and that the trial court erroneously found for Johnson on the MTCA claims because Johnson had failed to show that the City was not immune from suit.
¶4. We hold that the City was entitled to a directed verdict on Johnson's § 1983 claim. Because due process does not require municipalities to protect their citizens from acts of private violence, Johnson was unable to show that the City violated Ruth Harrion's constitutional right to due process under § 1983. We affirm the trial court's finding the City liable under the MTCA.
¶5. Sixty-seven-year-old Ruth Harrion lived alone. At 3:23 a.m. on July 15, 2014, she called the City of Jackson's 911 emergency call center. Debra Goldman, a shift supervisor with the Jackson Police Department (JPD), answered the call. As a shift supervisor, Goldman was responsible for following applicable policies and procedures and making sure her subordinates followed those procedures. According to the City's Public Safety Communications Operating Procedures Manual, for emergency calls of this type, "the caller will be kept on the line whenever possible." For prowler calls specifically, Goldman testified that those policies and procedures applied to how she was supposed to handle Ruth Harrion's call.
¶6. When Goldman answered Ruth Harrion's call, Harrion said, "I have a prowler around my house." Goldman asked for her name and, after Harrion provided her name, Goldman said, "we'll send the police." Then, the call was disconnected. It is disputed which party hung up first. Undisputed and likewise shown by a recording of the call is that Goldman made no attempt to keep Ruth Harrion on the line until the police arrived. Nor did she attempt to determine the prowler's location or whether Harrion had seen or heard the prowler. Goldman explained that the purpose of the call-taking policies is to save lives and that she was supposed to follow the policies but that she did not follow the policies in this instance. Goldman testified that, because Ruth Harrion's call reported a felony in progress, she dispatched the call as a "priority one" call, the highest priority.
¶7. Tammie Heard and Derrick Evans were the police officers dispatched to Ruth Harrion's home at 3:28 a.m. Evans did not testify. Heard testified that Evans arrived two and a half to three minutes after the dispatch, and that she, Heard, arrived about four minutes after the dispatch. When Heard arrived, Evans was checking the house. The two officers walked all the way down both sides of the house together until they came to the backyard fence. The fence enclosing the backyard was approximately six feet high on one side and three to four feet high on the other side. Heard testified that an unwritten City of Jackson policy prevents police officers from going over a fence unless they are chasing a felon or someone is in distress. Therefore, Heard testified, they did not cross over the fence, but instead shined flashlights into the backyard and looked around. After they checked around the house and observed no signs of forced entry, they knocked on the front door, but no one answered, and they heard nothing out of the ordinary. Evans asked dispatch to call Ruth Harrion's telephone, and the officers heard the telephone ringing from inside the house. The officers checked the license plate on a vehicle parked in the driveway and learned that the vehicle belonged to Ruth Harrion's relative. Then, Officer Heard cleared the call as "unable to locate." Officer Evans was cleared to go on a meal break. Before going back into service, Heard patrolled the neighborhood in her car but saw nothing out of the ordinary.
¶8. Heard testified that she learned later that the perpetrator, Alonzo Stewart,1 had been inside holding Harrion hostage while she and Evans were investigating outside. Harrion's body was found later that day outside her home. Detective Kevin McNeill responded to the crime scene. He determined that Stewart had pushed the burglar bars off a bedroom window and had used an overturned recycling bin to climb into Harrion's home through the window. The window was located inside the fence that Heard and Evans had declined to cross. McNeill observed that the window where Stewart had entered was ajar and that the recycling bin was underneath it. Marks were visible where the burglar bars had been pushed in. McNeill testified that the overturned recycling bin was clearly visible from the fence.
¶9. According to the autopsy report, Ruth Harrion had been severely beaten, raped, and strangled, and she sustained a fatal gunshot wound to the left eye. The murder weapon was a .32 caliber revolver that Ruth Harrion had kept for self-defense. Evidence established that she had fired one shot at Stewart but missed; then he took the gun from her, ultimately using it to kill her. The murder weapon was recovered from a creek bank after Stewart gave a confession to the police describing its whereabouts.
¶10. JPD's General Order 600-4 provides that "[t]he first officer on the scene ... shall: Determine the nature of the problem and take appropriate action." The general order provides also that "[t]he primary responsibility of officers responding to an emergency situation is to identify the problem and participants, protect life and property, secure the crime scene, notify and deploy necessary support personnel, establish communications with the situation, restore and maintain order." Johnson sought to show at trial that Evans and Heard had violated this policy by not forcing entry into Ruth Harrion's home when she failed to answer the door or the phone call from dispatch. Further, Johnson sought to show that the officers had violated the policy by failing to discover that Stewart had gained entry by removing burglar bars from a window and by placing a recycling bin underneath it.
¶11. Officer Heard testified that she had seen the window in question but that no sign of forced entry had been present at that time. She testified that, if she and Evans had known that the perpetrator was inside, they would have forced their way into the house. According to Heard, Ruth Harrion's prowler call had seemed no different from others she had investigated. She testified that prowler calls all are handled the same way. When the police arrive, they check the grounds and make sure there are no signs of forced entry. They will advise dispatch if the home is secure or if there is a locked fence. They ask dispatch to contact the complainant. She testified that it is not mandatory for police to make contact with someone who has called to report a prowler and that, commonly, residents do not come to the door when the police arrive.
¶12. Heard testified that, if there had been any sign that someone had broken into Ruth Harrion's home, she and Evans would have forced their way inside. But she said that, without any sign that a prowler is inside, the police cannot force entry into a house in response to a prowler call. She testified that they would have called a supervisor only in response to an actual crime scene, such as a homicide or a rape. Heard testified that if the police cannot get in, they call the fire department to make a forced entry. She reiterated that officers are trained not to go over a fence unless they are chasing someone.
¶13. Johnson presented expert testimony regarding the actions and inactions of the 911 dispatcher...
To continue reading
Request your trial