A federal judge in Washington D.C. has granted summary judgment to a District of Columbia police officer and the city, ruling that the officer is protected by qualified immunity against claims of excessive force and assault and battery following a contentious arrest. The decision hinges on the high legal bar required to overcome qualified immunity, particularly when an officer is grappling with a potentially armed and uncooperative suspect in a rapidly evolving situation.
The ruling resolves the latest chapter in the lawsuit filed by Michael Leach against Officer David Whitehead and the District of Columbia. After initial proceedings and a period of additional discovery—which included the production of body-worn camera (BWC) footage—the Defendants renewed their motion seeking judgment in their favor.
The Violent Confrontation
The incident dates back to March 22, 2017. Mr. Leach had been visiting an acquaintance when, after an unexplained period, the acquaintance forced open a bathroom door to find Leach lying in the bathtub. The situation escalated immediately: police were called after Leach allegedly drew a gun and fired a shot at the acquaintance, missing him.
When Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officers arrived, they encountered Leach standing in the doorway. Crucially, Leach’s right hand—where the gun was concealed—was not visible to the officers. Officer John Bewley, the closest officer, ordered Leach to show his hand, but Leach did not comply and moved toward the officer. At that point, Officer Bewley saw the weapon and fired five shots, hitting Leach multiple times in the torso and legs.
After Leach fell, several officers rushed forward to secure him and retrieve the firearm. Officer Whitehead positioned himself over Leach’s head. According to the Defendants’ account, officers repeatedly commanded Leach to drop the gun, but they struggled to secure it, feeling Leach’s arm tense up as they attempted to gain control.
It was during this struggle that Officer Whitehead began striking Leach in the face. Body camera footage showed that Whitehead paused his strikes shortly after Officer Bewley announced he had secured the gun. However, the officers remained concerned that Leach might have another weapon. Officer Whitehead then resumed striking Leach ten more times while commanding him to “stop resisting.” It took a total of 81 seconds after the gun was retrieved before Leach was successfully handcuffed.
Factual Disputes Settled by Video Evidence
Before addressing the legal merits of immunity, the court had to settle disputes over the facts, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Mr. Leach.
The court rejected Leach’s argument that there was no evidence he was tensing his arm during the initial struggle. Officer Whitehead’s sworn deposition testimony, even if uncorroborated by video at that exact moment, was deemed sufficient evidence for the Defendants to rely upon at the summary judgment stage.
Furthermore, Leach disputed whether Officer Whitehead paused his striking after the gun was recovered. The court relied on objective video evidence, noting that the BWC footage clearly showed Officer Whitehead ceasing his strikes briefly after Officer Bewley announced he had the weapon, even if that pause was short.
The Qualified Immunity Hurdle
The core of the ruling centered on qualified immunity for Officer Whitehead regarding the excessive force claim (a Fourth Amendment violation). To overcome this protection, Leach needed to show two things: that a constitutional right was violated, and that the unlawfulness of the officer’s conduct was “clearly established” at the time of the incident (March 2017).
Judge Amit P. Mehta focused solely on the second prong: whether the law clearly established that Whitehead’s actions were unlawful.
The standard for “clearly established law” is extremely high. Precedent must have made it “sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would understand what he is doing is unlawful.” In excessive force cases, the precedent must “squarely govern” the specific facts at issue.
The court found that no binding precedent—from the Supreme Court or the D.C. Circuit—clearly established that Officer Whitehead’s actions were unconstitutional under these specific, volatile circumstances.
Leach pointed to *Johnson v. District of Columbia*, where an officer was found liable for kicking a suspect who had clearly submitted by falling face-first and spreading his arms. The court distinguished the present case, noting that Leach was not submitting; he was actively resisting efforts to retrieve a gun, with officers feeling him tense up and fearing he had a second weapon until he was fully secured.
The court also dismissed persuasive authority cited by Leach because most of those cases were decided *after* the 2017 incident, making them irrelevant to what Officer Whitehead should have known at the time. For the older cases that did exist, the court found they were factually distinguishable—either because the suspect in those cases was subdued or because the magnitude of force used was different.
The court acknowledged that officers can use substantial force to secure a suspect in a quickly developing situation, referencing existing D.C. Circuit recognition of this principle. Because no case squarely controlled the scenario—where an officer strikes a suspect while struggling to secure a recently fired weapon and before handcuffs are applied—Officer Whitehead was entitled to qualified immunity.
The Downfall of Remaining Claims
Because the claims for assault and battery against Officer Whitehead, and the vicarious liability claim against the District of Columbia, all depended on the underlying excessive force claim surviving, they also failed. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on all remaining counts.