Sean Hart, Tiffany Guzman v. City of Grand Rapids, et al.

Detroit, Michigan civil rights lawyer represented the Plaintiffs who claimed that a Detroit police officers used excessive force and injured him.



MoreLaw was created to help people find experienced lawyers to represent them in the more than 3,144 counties across the United States. Click the link above to see a list of lawyers ready and willing to represent you if you have a legal problem and need help. Call: 918-582-6422 for help.



Around 8:30 p.m., on May 30, 2020, after fishing near Grand Rapids, Michigan, Sean Hart and Tiffany Guzman heard sirens and began driving downtown. There, a crowd had gathered for a racial justice demonstration. Based on reports of violence at similar demonstrations across the country, members of the Grand Rapids Police Department (GRPD)'s Special Response Team (SRT) were stationed around the crowd.

SRT had prepared "crowd control” packs containing specialty munitions, which included Muzzle Blast, designed to be fired at individuals at close range, and Spede-Heat, intended for long-range firing at crowds. Muzzle Blast and Spede-Heat can be fired using the same 40-millimeter launcher, and their cartridges look similar. But as described in Officer Reinink's incident report, "[a] Muzzle Blast 40mm round is a powder dispersion round,” and "is used as a crowd control management tool for intermediate and close deployment.” In contrast, Spede-Heat munitions, which contain cannisters of a chemical "commonly known as tear gas[,] . . . w[ere] designed to be launched into a target area and not directly at a subject.”



Taken together, under our precedent, it was clearly established in May 2020 that the deployment of deadly force against an unarmed individual who posed no imminent threat to officers, such as Hart, was constitutionally impermissible. We therefore reverse the grant of summary judgment in favor of Officer Reinink.



* * *



Recognizing that "there can be no doubt that § 1 of the Civil Rights Act was intended to provide a remedy, to be broadly construed, against all forms of official violation of federally protected rights,” the Supreme Court has long held that a municipality can be sued under § 1983 for constitutional violations for which "the government as an entity is responsible.” Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694, 700–01 (1978). The preliminary question in a Monell analysis is "whether there is a direct causal link between a municipal policy or custom and the alleged constitutional deprivation.” City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989). "Municipal liability for the actions of employees may not be based on a theory of respondeat superior.” Berry v. City of Detroit, 25 F.3d 1342, 1345 (6th Cir. 1994) (emphasis omitted).

Motion for summary judgement granted.



Reversed