Dimock v. Brooklyn Center, City of

Background

Erwin Heisler called 911 in August 2019 and reported that his twenty-one-year-old grandson, Kobe, had become violent and had a hammer and knife. Brooklyn Center officers Brandon Akers, Steve Holt, Cody Turner, and Joseph Vu went to the house. The court found that Erwin’s conduct reasonably appeared to give the officers permission to enter, and that the officers also had a reasonable basis to believe an armed person might endanger people inside.

Inside, Officer Vu asked Kobe to stand for a weapons pat-down. While officers spoke with Kobe, he said he had pointed a knife at his grandfather and probably intended to assault him. Kobe became upset when told that an ambulance would evaluate his wounds. He stood abruptly, resisted officers’ attempts to stop him, and reached between couch cushions. He took out a knife and began moving with it. Officers Turner and Akers fired at him, and Kobe died before officers could provide aid.

Amity Dimock, trustee for Kobe’s heirs and next of kin, sued the City of Brooklyn Center and the four officers. The complaint asserted six types of claims: excessive force, deliberate indifference, unlawful search, violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Minnesota Human Rights Act, wrongful death, and municipal liability under the rule commonly called Monell liability. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence requires a trial or instead requires judgment as a matter of law.

Standing

The defendants argued that Dimock could assert only claims related to Kobe’s death, not claims concerning the warrantless entry, pat-down search, or Tasers. The court rejected that argument. Applying Minnesota’s survivorship law, it held that the trustee could pursue claims for injuries Kobe could have sued over had he survived, even if those injuries were unrelated to the injuries that caused his death.

Qualified Immunity and Warrantless Entry

Qualified immunity generally protects government officials from damages when their conduct did not violate a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time. The court concluded that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the entry claim for two independent reasons. First, a reasonable person would have understood Erwin’s words and actions—including saying “okay,” entering the home, holding the screen door open, and making room for an officer—as consent to enter. Second, even without consent, the officers reasonably believed exigent circumstances existed because Kobe had reportedly threatened Erwin with a knife and hammer and remained inside with his grandmother.

The court therefore concluded that the plaintiff had not shown a violation of a clearly established right concerning the entry.

Pat-Down Search

The court held that Officers Holt and Vu were entitled to conduct a limited weapons search because they were responding to a report that Kobe had threatened Erwin with a knife and hammer. Even though Erwin said Kobe had given him his weapons, the officers could reasonably believe Kobe might still be armed. The court concluded that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and stated that this claim was dismissed.

Excessive Force

The court addressed both the Tasers and the shooting. It found the Taser use reasonable because Kobe abruptly tried to flee, resisted the officers, and did not comply with repeated commands to get down.

For the shooting, the court recognized that the video did not clearly resolve whether Kobe made stabbing motions. It nevertheless found the following facts undisputed for purposes of the motion: Kobe had recently threatened his grandfather with a knife and hammer, tried to flee, resisted the officers, did not appear to respond to the Tasers, took out a knife, and began moving with it while within feet of officers Turner and Vu and his grandmother. The court concluded that Officers Turner and Akers reasonably believed Kobe posed an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury. It therefore held that both officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the deadly-force claim.

The court also rejected the argument that Kobe’s autism and known suicidal behavior made the force unreasonable, relying on the cited Eighth Circuit authority concerning the immediate threat posed by a suspect with mental illness.

Other Claims

The court stated that Dimock did not defend the deliberate-indifference, Monell, wrongful-death, or Americans with Disabilities Act/Minnesota Human Rights Act claims. At the hearing, Dimock said she was abandoning the deliberate-indifference and Monell claims and was not in a position to defend the disability and human-rights claim. Relying on the rule that failing to oppose summary judgment waives claims, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants on these claims as well.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It ordered that Dimock’s claims against the defendants be dismissed with prejudice and that judgment be entered accordingly.