The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently vacated and remanded a District Court opinion that denied qualified immunity to a Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Officer. In Belton v. Loveridge, the appellate court held the trial court must distinctly analyze whether qualified immunity applies and that such analysis must occur separately from its analysis of state court liability. 129 F.4th 271, 274 (4th Cir. 2025).
Facts
A criminal task force comprised of multiple law enforcement officers was serving a search warrant on a person suspected of distributing methamphetamine. He had spent 15 years in prison for murder and was also known to keep weapons in his house; hence the need for multiple officers to be present. As officers tried to enter the house, a woman in the house was poised to fire a gun at the officers. As Task Force Officer Belton shouted “Gun! Gun!”, other officers fired at the woman and Belton was accidentally shot, dropping him to the floor. As other officers began firing, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Officer Loveridge mistakenly thought Belton was the suspect and shot at and hit him.
The North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation investigated the incident, and the Mecklenburg County District Attorney decided not to seek charges on the basis that it was too difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Loveridge’s use of force was unreasonable under the circumstances. However, the CMPD’s Internal Affairs Bureau conducted its own investigation and determined that Loveridge had improperly used deadly force and recommended her termination.
The United States District Court Lawsuit
Belton, the officer who’d been shot by accident, filed suit against Loveridge and the City of Charlotte asserting claims for 1) 42 USC §1983; 2) negligence against the City and Loveridge in her official capacity; 3) assault and battery against Loveridge in her individual capacity; and, 4) negligence infliction of emotional distress against Loveridge in her official and individual capacities. Loveridge and the City filed a Motion for Summary Judgment claiming Loveridge had qualified immunity to the 42 USC §1983 claim and that public official immunity barred the state court claims. However, the United States District Court denied the motion by finding a factual dispute as to the state law claims and that the same factual disputes prohibited it granting qualified immunity.
The District Court concluded the following:
- There were genuine disputes of material fact (e.g., lighting disputes, line-of-sight disputes, etc.).
- As to qualified immunity, “qualified immunity does not alter the ordinary rules applicable to summary judgement proceedings.”
“A court should deny summary judgment on qualified immunity when a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the circumstances under which the officer…used force against the plaintiff.”
Defendants filed an appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals as to the denial of qualified immunity.
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Analysis
The Fourth Circuit vacated the District Court’s order on the grounds that the District Court “failed to determine at a particularized level what constitutional or statutory right Loveridge violated and whether that right was clearly established at the time of her conduct.” The Fourth Circuit Court continued, “[b]oth are questions of law for the court, not of fact.” The qualified immunity analysis is well established and involves a two-pronged question:
- Whether the officer violated a Constitutional or statutory right; and if so,
- Whether the right was clearly established at the time the officer acted.
As to the first prong, the appellate court noted that the test is one of “objective reasonableness.” Additionally, the second prong must be identified with specificity, in that the clearly established right must be “defined with such particularity as to apply clearly to the specific circumstances facing the officer.” To explain, the Fourth Circuit quoted the Supreme Court on the test of qualified immunity:
- “[a]n officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless no reasonable officer from his vantage point could ‘reasonably have believed’ that he acted lawfully.” (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987)).
- Qualified immunity “protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” (quoting White v. Pauly, 580 U.S. 73, 79 (2017)).
The Fourth Circuit ultimately vacated the District Court decision because the District Court failed to conduct this distinct immunity analysis, specifically by failing to identify the clearly established right at issue which Loveridge had violated.
Conclusion
While Belton is a recent decision from the Fourth Circuit vacating or reversing a North Carolina District Court’s denial of qualified immunity, it follows Rambert v. City of Greenville, in which a police officer also used deadly force and was denied qualified immunity at the District Court level. 107 F.4th 388, 393 (4th Cir. 2024).
In Rambert, the District Court concluded that there were disputed issues of material fact as to whether the officer was charged before shooting, and if so, whether deadly force violated the victim’s Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that the officer’s conduct was objectively reasonable, and even if it was unreasonable, it did not violate clearly established law—both issues of law for the court.
Following the Rambert decision in 2024, the Eastern District Court issued a one-page order granting summary judgment to the officer on January 6, 2025.
Qualified immunity is a defense to practically every case under 42 USC §1983. The US Supreme Court has made it clear that the right allegedly violated must be clearly established and that the right must not be a “general” right, but a “specific” right. As such, a court’s analysis of a qualified immunity defense must involve looking at the specific facts of each case and only upon a finding that such facts violated a right based on those specific facts should a summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity be denied. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has now twice recently looked at trial court rulings where this analysis was not properly conducted and reversed a case after correctly conducting such analysis or remanding a case with instructions on how to correctly conduct this analysis. Litigants in 42 USC §1983 cases – and trial courts – now have a clearer understanding on how to properly consider qualified immunity defenses.