A Deadly Encounter: Court Clarifies Use of Force in Police Shooting of Mentally Ill Individual
Key Points:
- Use of Deadly Force: The court upheld the police officers’ use of deadly force, which is relevant for insurance coverage in similar incidents.
- Municipal Liability: No liability for the defendant as there was no constitutional violation, impacting municipal coverage decisions.
- State-Law Claims: Dismissal of wrongful death and emotional distress claims highlights the importance of reasonable officer actions in defending state-law claims.
- Ongoing Appeal: The case is under appeal, potentially influencing future police liability coverage and claims.
On August 3, 2021, Plymouth Township police officers responded to a crisis involving Michael Paone, a 22-year-old with a history of mental illness, which tragically resulted in his death. The case addressed the complex intersection of mental health, police use of deadly force, and constitutional rights. Judge Joshua Wolson granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, concluding the law enforcement officers acted within their rights when responding to a perceived deadly threat, thus providing crucial guidance on police decision-making in such high-stakes encounters.
The Facts of the Case
On the evening of August 3, 2021, Michael Paone was exhibiting erratic behavior and appeared to be armed with a firearm outside an apartment complex. Paone had previously been diagnosed with multiple mental health disorders, including bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Paone’s sister called 911, reporting he was armed with a knife and experiencing a mental health crisis, and she informed the dispatcher that Michael had a “fake toy gun.”
Police arrived at the scene and found Paone positioned between two buildings. Officers took positions at varying distances and instructed Paone to drop the weapon. Paone initially complied and dropped the BB gun, but when officers moved closer, he appeared to bend toward the weapon. Fearing for their safety, and believing the object was a real firearm, Officer Doe 1 fired three shots at Paone, who then briefly rose to reach for the weapon, prompting additional shots from Officer Doe 1 and other officers.
Following the incident, Paone was transported to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead from multiple gunshot wounds.
Legal Standard for Use of Deadly Force
The central issue was whether the officers’ use of deadly force violated the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, including excessive force. The court applied the Graham v. Connor standard, which assesses the reasonableness of force based on the circumstances at the time.
Judge Wolson found no factual dispute that would allow a reasonable juror to conclude the officers violated Paone’s rights. Citing Lamont v. New Jersey, Judge Wolson emphasized that officers must prioritize their safety when faced with a lethal threat. Paone’s actions of raising and pointing a weapon—whether real or not—created an objectively reasonable belief that deadly force was warranted.
The Mental Health Factor
The plaintiff argued that Paone’s mental illness should have influenced the officers’ response. Judge Wolson acknowledged Paone’s mental health issues but clarified that mental illness does not eliminate the possibility that an individual can pose a deadly threat in a high-stress situation.
Judge Wolson explained, the case was not about Paone’s mental health or whether he had a toy gun, but whether the officers’ use of deadly force was justified. He noted that Paone’s mental illness did not grant him additional constitutional protection or remove the potential danger posed by his actions. The Constitution does not require officers to “gamble with their lives” in situations involving mental illness, especially when facing a perceived deadly threat.
Dismissal of Remaining Claims
Having determined that the police officers’ use of deadly force was justified, Judge Wolson dismissed several remaining claims. The municipal liability claim against Plymouth Township failed because there was no underlying constitutional violation. Under Section 1983, a municipality can only be held liable if a constitutional violation occurred.
The state-law claims—survival and wrongful death, assault and battery, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress—were also dismissed. The survival and wrongful death claims failed as the officers’ actions were deemed reasonable. The assault and battery claim was dismissed because the use of force was justified. Similarly, the emotional distress claims were dismissed for lack of an underlying tort or extreme conduct.
Implications and Conclusion
The court’s decision in this case highlights the critical balance law enforcement must strike when responding to high-risk situations, especially those involving individuals with mental health disorders. The case reinforces that police officers must act based on their assessment of an immediate threat, without the benefit of time for detailed evaluations. While mental illness is an important factor, it does not negate the potential danger posed by an individual holding a weapon.
This ruling emphasizes the need to protect both the constitutional rights of individuals and the safety of law enforcement officers. The court’s decision ensures that officers are able to make split-second decisions in the face of perceived threats, with a focus on their safety and the safety of others.
The case is now being appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, where it may further shape legal standards surrounding police use of force in similar encounters
*Connor is a member of Public Entity & Civil Rights Litigation Practice Group and works in our Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, office.
Defense Digest, Vol. 31, No. 1, March 2025, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2025 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.