## Facts

- Monroe, Georgia police officers Joseph Tatangelo, Anthony Fortson, and Kipling Damien Mercer conducted late-night surveillance near Carr’s residence after an encounter with an intoxicated man who offered to lure drugs from the house and was later found to have outstanding arrest warrants.
- The officers concealed themselves around Carr’s house to watch for the wanted man to reemerge so they could arrest him.
- Around 2:00 a.m., Cedrick Wymbs exited Carr’s house; Carr spoke with a friend in a nearby car while Wymbs walked toward a pay phone.
- Tatangelo testified he observed Wymbs carrying a handgun and, believing Wymbs was about to engage in a drug transaction, approached with his weapon drawn and ordered him to drop the gun.
- Tatangelo stated Wymbs did not comply and instead turned toward him while raising the weapon; Tatangelo fired one shot, striking Wymbs in the chest.
- Plaintiffs asserted Wymbs was unarmed, officers did not clearly identify themselves, and physical circumstances undermined Tatangelo’s account; they contended the recovered handgun near the scene was planted or moved.
- Carr and Wymbs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourth Amendment excessive force and asserted related federal and Georgia tort claims; the district court granted summary judgment to all officers on qualified immunity and official immunity grounds.

## Issues

1. Whether, viewing the evidence in plaintiffs’ favor, Tatangelo’s use of deadly force violated the Fourth Amendment and, if so, whether the unlawfulness was clearly established, defeating qualified immunity.
2. Whether Fortson and Mercer could be liable under § 1983 on participation or failure-to-intervene theories, and whether qualified immunity applied to them.
3. Whether Georgia official immunity barred the state-law tort claims absent evidence of actual malice or intent to injure.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Tatangelo, Fortson, and Mercer.
- The court held the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 excessive-force claim arising from the shooting.
- The court held plaintiffs failed to show a violation of clearly established Fourth Amendment law under the circumstances confronting Tatangelo.
- The court held Georgia official immunity barred the state-law claims because the record did not show actual malice or intent to injure.

## Legal Principles

- Qualified immunity shields officers unless (1) the facts show a constitutional violation and (2) the right was clearly established at the time.
- Fourth Amendment deadly force is judged by objective reasonableness under the totality of circumstances, including split-second decisions in tense and uncertain conditions.
- Deadly force is constitutionally permissible when an officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or others.
- For clearly established law, plaintiffs must identify materially similar precedent or show the conduct was so plainly unlawful that existing law gave unmistakable notice.
- Without an underlying clearly established constitutional violation tied to the shooting, related § 1983 theories against other officers (including failure to intervene) do not proceed.
- Under Georgia official immunity, officers performing discretionary acts are immune from tort liability absent evidence of actual malice or intent to injure.

## Conclusion

The court upheld qualified immunity because a reasonable officer could have perceived an immediate lethal threat when confronting an apparently armed individual who turned toward the officer during a nighttime surveillance operation, and existing precedent did not clearly establish that such a split-second use of deadly force was unconstitutional; state-law claims were barred by official immunity absent actual malice or intent to injure.


Carr v. Tatangelo, 338 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2003)