Walker v. Donahoe

• Decision Date: 07 July 2021
• Docket Number: No. 20-1547,20-1547
• Parties: Michael WALKER, individually, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. B. E. DONAHOE, in his individual capacity, Defendant – Appellee, and B. W. Pauley, in his individual capacity, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

3 F.4th 676

Michael WALKER, individually, Plaintiff – Appellant,

v. B. E. DONAHOE, in his individual capacity, Defendant – Appellee,andB. W. Pauley, in his individual capacity, Defendant.

No. 20-1547

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: March 10, 2021

Decided: July 7, 2021

ARGUED: John Hague Bryan, JOHN H. BRYAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Union, West Virginia, for Appellant. Adam Ketner Strider, BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Charles R. Bailey, BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Before KING, KEENAN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge King wrote the majority opinion, in which Judge Keenan joined. Judge Richardson wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment.

KING, Circuit Judge:

Michael Walker initiated this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in late 2018 in the Southern District of West Virginia against Corporal Brian E. Donahoe of the Putnam County Sheriff's Department. Walker was stopped in Putnam County, West Virginia, in February 2018 while walking along a public road with an AR-15-style assault rifle. Corporal Donahoe briefly detained Walker to question him and confirm his eligibility to carry a firearm. By his lawsuit, Walker seeks damages for the allegedly unconstitutional seizure of his person. In March 2020, the district court ruled that there was reasonable suspicion supporting Donahoe's investigatory detention of Walker and awarded summary judgment to Donahoe. See Walker v. Donahoe, No. 3:18-cv-01523, 2020 WL 1015770 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 2, 2020), ECF No. 63 (the "Opinion"). Walker has appealed and, as explained below, we affirm.

I.

A.

On February 14, 2018, a week before Walker was stopped and detained, a 19-year-old gunman in Parkland, Florida, opened fire inside Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School with an AR-15-style assault rifle. The Parkland school shooting claimed the lives of 17 persons and wounded several others. That massacre received extensive national news coverage and was one of the deadliest school shootings in American history. The Parkland shooting serves as background for the events giving rise to this § 1983 action.

Also pertinent is that it is generally legal in West Virginia to openly carry firearms, including AR-15 and other semiautomatic assault rifles. Nevertheless, eligibility to possess and carry firearms is subject to some limitations. For example, a state statute bars "a person under the age of 18 years who is not married or otherwise emancipated [from] possess[ing] or carry[ing] concealed or openly any deadly weapon." See W. Va. Code § 61-7-8 (providing exceptions for minors possessing deadly weapons on private property or for purposes of hunting). Moreover, federal law broadly prohibits the possession of firearms and ammunition by a person who has been convicted of a felony. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

The record reflects that Corporal Donahoe's investigatory detention of Walker arose from a 911 call on February 21, 2018. Specifically, a concerned citizen called 911 and reported a man with an assault rifle walking westbound along Route 33 (known as Teays Valley Road) through a suburban residential and commercial area in the unincorporated Scott Depot community of Putnam County. Donahoe and his colleague, Deputy Brandon W. Pauley, were dispatched to locate the armed man described by the 911 caller. From the caller's report, Donahoe and Pauley knew that Teays Valley Christian School was less than a mile ahead of the armed man. The school has about 300 students and operates as a kindergarten through high school.

From his vehicle, Deputy Pauley soon spotted the armed man — Walker — and directed him to a nearby driveway away from the Teays Valley Road traffic. Corporal Donahoe arrived in a separate vehicle at about that same time and stopped Walker before he reached the driveway. The Putnam County officers observed that Walker was heading toward Teays Valley Christian School, that he was wearing military-style clothing (including a black sleeveless shirt and camouflage pants), that he was carrying a backpack, and that he had an uncased AR-15-style assault rifle on his back. Upon seeing Walker, the officers each believed that he could be under the age of 18. That was so, they later explained, because of Walker's youthful appearance and the fact that he was walking rather than driving. As it turned out, Walker was actually 24 years old.

Walker began using his cell phone at the outset to film his encounter with Corporal Donahoe and Deputy Pauley.¹ Walker's video shows that Donahoe, the senior officer on the scene, engaged with Walker while Pauley stood by. The video further reveals that Walker was largely polite but assertive, that he refused to answer several of Donahoe's questions, and that he challenged the officers’ authority to stop and detain him. Walker said of his destination only that he was walking "up to a buddy's," and he initially declined to produce his identification papers but soon relented and provided them to Donahoe. Meanwhile, Walker steadfastly refused to provide information about his assault rifle and his reason for carrying it, though he proclaimed that he had "done nothing wrong" and was simply "walking up the road." Walker also said that he had walked along Teays Valley Road while armed several times before and that walking was his only means of transportation. He repeatedly asked Donahoe why he was stopped, whether he had broken any law or was suspected of a crime, and whether he was free to go or being detained.

For his part, Corporal Donahoe became heated toward Walker and even swore at him during their encounter. Donahoe got physically close to Walker but did not restrain him, pat him down, or otherwise touch him or his assault rifle. After receiving Walker's identification papers showing his age, Donahoe called the Sheriff's dispatch office for a criminal history check to ascertain whether Walker had any criminal conviction that would disqualify him from carrying a firearm. Donahoe suggested to Walker that a law enforcement officer possesses the authority to conduct a background check on any person carrying a firearm. At one point, Donahoe advised Walker that "I have the absolute legal right to see whether you're legal to carry that gun or not." When Walker asked Donahoe if he was being detained, Donahoe indicated that Walker could not leave until Donahoe gave permission.

The Sheriff's dispatch office promptly responded to Corporal Donahoe's request for a criminal history check and reported that Walker had been convicted of a misdemeanor drug offense and acquitted of a charge of obstructing a law enforcement officer. Thus believing that Walker was eligible to carry a firearm, Donahoe returned Walker's identification papers and told him that he was free to go. The entire encounter lasted less than nine minutes.

Notably, during his interaction with Walker, Corporal Donahoe referenced the 911 caller's report of an armed man walking along Teays Valley Road. Donahoe did not mention any suspicion that Walker might be heading to Teays Valley Christian School to perpetrate a mass shooting. In these proceedings, however, Donahoe testified that he "knew [the Parkland school shooting had just] happened" and it was "in the back of [his] mind." See J.A. 166. Indeed, both Donahoe and Deputy Pauley said they were on heightened alert for possible "copycat" crimes. See id. at 173-74, 235. Donahoe acknowledged having been aware that, once he let Walker go, Walker "was still going to be heading that way [toward the school] with an assault rifle." Id. at 175. Donahoe and Pauley did not make any effort to follow or further investigate Walker, and the officers have since expressed the belief that there was nothing more they could do once Walker's criminal history check revealed no ground for his continued detention.

In his testimony in these proceedings, Walker explained that he was not licensed to drive because he suffered from epilepsy. According to Walker, when he was stopped and detained on February 21, 2018, he was in the midst of a 15-minute walk from his home to a friend's house to go coyote hunting. He stated that he did not know where the coyote hunt was to occur and that it did not happen because his friend was not "able to find his coyote call." See J.A. 240. Walker also testified that, in addition to the "AR-15 on [his] back," he was carrying a concealed "side arm." Id. He admitted that the Parkland school shooting had "occurred the same week," that he was walking "less than a mile away from Teays Valley Christian School," that "open carry in West Virginia is only legal for people over the age of 18," and that he was regularly "carded" while buying cigarettes. Id. at 242, 244. Nonetheless, Walker insisted that there was no reason to suspect him of committing any crime.

B.

On December 17, 2018, Walker filed his Complaint in federal court in Huntington, West Virginia, alleging the § 1983 claim against Corporal Donahoe, in his individual capacity, that the investigatory detention contravened the Fourth Amendment. After pretrial proceedings that included discovery, the parties submitted cross-motions for summary judgment. For reasons explained in its Opinion of March 2, 2020, the district court awarded summary judgment to Donahoe.²

The district court ruled that Corporal Donahoe's seizure of Walker was not unconstitutional in that there was "reasonable suspicion to stop Walker and the extent of the intrusion and length of the stop were reasonable." See Opinion 10. In assessing the justification for the investigatory detention, the court considered the facts known to Donahoe under the "objective reasonable suspicion standard." Id. at 5. The court was also mindful of the principle that "where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention." Id. (quoting United States v. Black , 707 F.3d...