Naji v. City of Dearborn, 2024 WL 4589634 (6th Cir. 2024)
In Dearborn, Michigan, Corporal Timothy Clive was working at a desk in the front area of the police station on an unusually busy Sunday afternoon when Ali Naji walked into the lobby wearing a surgical mask. Corporal Clive stood, approached Naji and asked, “How you doin’?” In response, Naji drew a handgun from his waistband, aimed it at Clive and pulled the trigger. Clive jumped back as Naji was bringing the gun to bear, shouting “Gun, gun, gun!”
Luckily for Clive, the gun “clicked” instead of firing. As Naji worked to clear the gun and re-seat the magazine, Clive believed the man “was in the process of fixing a malfunction to kill myself or to kill anybody else that entered that lobby.” Clive slid open the front counter window and fired fourteen rounds in quick succession. The corporal reported he “never saw Naji drop the gun,” though he did see Naji “rearing up onto his right side” as if “he was still going to try to shoot and kill me.” Clive fired three more rounds at Naji. Naji did not survive the encounter.
Naji’s estate sued, claiming Clive could not know Naji intended to kill him or anyone else in the lobby. The estate asserted Clive was in no danger as Naji aimed the gun and fired because he was behind ballistic glass and Clive did not know whether a bullet could penetrate the glass. The estate further claimed Clive failed to use de-escalation tactics during the very brief gap between Naji pulling the trigger and trying to clear the malfunction.
The bright line rule for assessing the reasonableness of deadly force states an officer’s force is objectively reasonable when “an officer has probable cause to believe a suspect poses an immediate threat of serious physical harm to the officer or others” (Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)). The court considers the “totality of the circumstances to determine whether an officer used excessive force” (Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)). When considering the “totality of the circumstances,” the Supreme Court’s opinion in Graham v. Connor listed three factors as a starting point:
- The severity of the crime at issue.
- Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others.
- Whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.
Based on the abbreviated recitation of the facts stated in this article, it should be easy to conclude an officer is justified in shooting someone who has just aimed a gun at them, pulled the trigger, and is trying to clear a malfunction. The trial court ruled Corporal Clive’s use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Naji’s estate appealed.
Get the Xiphos law enforcement legal update delivered to your inbox: SUBSCRIBE NOW!
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, agreeing the officer’s actions were objectively reasonable and he had probable cause to believe Naji posed an immediate threat. Notably, the court scoffed at the idea that “bulletproof glass dispels all danger.” Indeed, the panel emphasized that Naji posed a deadly threat to anyone who might have walked into the police station “on a busy Sunday during a Christmas toy drive.” Responding with deadly force was reasonable, according to the court.
The court cited the “split-second decision” forced on Clive by Naji’s actions: “An officer who has already been fired on (unsuccessfully) need not pause to give an assailant time to reload or repair his gun. A mere six seconds transpired between Naji attempting to fire and Clive returning fire.” Finally, the appellate court also rejected the argument that Naji’s alleged mental illness should affect the calculus of reasonableness of deadly force: “Officers can use lethal force against a mentally ill person who, like Naji, is armed and threatening.” Naji once received police help after a mental health episode, but there was no indication Corporal Clive had any knowledge of that incident or that he recognized Naji — who, after all, was wearing a mask.
