Background
In the early morning hours of August 30, 2022, Columbus Police officers arrived at Donovan Lewis’s apartment to execute an outstanding arrest warrant for domestic violence and improper handling of a firearm. After two occupants exited and were detained, officers continued commanding Lewis to come out. K-9 Officer Ricky Anderson arrived with his police dog, Boef, and announced that anyone remaining should exit or a K-9 would be deployed. After receiving no response, Anderson released the dog into the apartment.
Body-worn camera footage showed the K-9 entering the apartment and returning to the front door. Anderson and other officers then entered behind the dog. As Anderson approached a bedroom and pushed the door open with his left hand while holding his firearm in his right, he discharged his weapon within seconds, fatally shooting the 20-year-old Lewis. Lewis’s estate filed suit alleging wrongful death, asserting that Anderson acted recklessly. Anderson moved for summary judgment based on statutory immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744.
The Court’s Holding
The Tenth District affirmed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment for Officer Anderson. Applying the three-tiered analysis of R.C. Chapter 2744, the court found that while political subdivisions and their employees generally enjoy immunity, the reckless-conduct exception under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b) can strip that immunity. The court held that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether Anderson’s split-second decision to shoot Lewis was reckless under the circumstances.
The court emphasized that body-worn camera footage, expert testimony, and conflicting accounts of whether Lewis posed an imminent threat created factual disputes that a jury must resolve. Citing the Ohio Supreme Court’s direction in Smathers that courts at summary judgment must determine whether the evidence is “so one-sided” that immunity should apply as a matter of law, the Tenth District concluded that reasonable minds could disagree about whether Anderson genuinely perceived a risk of serious harm.
Key Takeaways
- The reckless-conduct exception under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b) can overcome statutory immunity for police officers when genuine factual disputes exist about the reasonableness of force used.
- Body-worn camera footage and expert testimony can create triable issues of fact that preclude summary judgment on immunity claims in police shooting cases.
- At summary judgment, courts must assess whether evidence of recklessness is so one-sided that immunity should apply as a matter of law, consistent with the Ohio Supreme Court’s Smathers framework.
Why It Matters
This is one of the most significant Ohio appellate decisions on police use-of-force immunity in recent years. The case establishes that body-worn camera evidence, when susceptible to competing interpretations, can preclude summary judgment on statutory immunity in police shooting cases. Practitioners handling wrongful death claims against law enforcement should note the Tenth District’s application of the Smathers framework and its willingness to let a jury evaluate the reasonableness of split-second decisions.