Eric Smith shot and killed the mother of his three-year-old son and her nephew in Baker, Louisiana. He then kidnapped his son, La’Mello Parker, and fled in his vehicle. Law enforcement officers located him driving eastbound near the Mississippi border. Officers deployed stop sticks, successfully puncturing multiple tires on Smith’s vehicle.
During the pursuit, which involved multiple police vehicles, Smith stopped and exited his vehicle while holding his three-year-old son against his chest. Smith then fired one round at a Mississippi Highway Patrol (MHP) trooper, re-entered his vehicle and continued driving. Smith’s shot missed and no officers returned fire.
Pursuing officers observed that Smith was holding his son on his lap while driving. Chris Allen, a Harrison County, Mississippi deputy sheriff, rammed Smith’s vehicle from behind, forcing it into the median and disabling it. Allen, along with other responding officers, stopped near Smith’s vehicle with their firearms drawn. Smith was still holding his son.
Almost immediately, Deputy Allen’s K9 exited his cruiser without a command. Allen left cover and ran to regain control of the dog. Smith responded by lowering his window and firing one shot. The round did not strike any officer but hit a police cruiser. Eleven officers immediately returned fire, discharging a total of 17 rounds at Smith’s vehicle.
Smith was struck three times and killed. His son, La’Mello, was also struck by a single round and killed. The bullet that killed the child was fired from an unidentified MHP trooper’s weapon. A Harrison County grand jury later declined to charge any officer in connection with La’Mello Parker’s death.
The lawsuit
La’Mello’s grandfather and brother (plaintiffs) sued the Mississippi Department of Public Safety; Harrison County, Mississippi; the City of Gulfport, Mississippi; the Harrison County sheriff; and several individual officers from the Mississippi Highway Patrol, the Harrison County Sheriff’s Office and Gulfport. The plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that on-scene officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
The federal district court judge dismissed the lawsuit against all defendants, ruling “that the officers’ actions during the fast-moving hostage crisis — while devastating in consequence — did not amount to constitutional wrongdoing, and that qualified immunity shielded the officers from suit.” The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
The Fifth Circuit decision
The Fifth Circuit denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the district court. [1] The court first ruled that the plaintiffs did have standing to bring this lawsuit. [2] The court next reviewed the Plaintiffs claims that the defendant officers violated the victim’s Fourth Amendment rights by shooting him during the exchange of gunfire. The court initially accepted, without deciding, that a seizure of La’ Mello occurred because all parties to the lawsuit agreed that a seizure happened. [3]
Fourth Amendment excessive force claim
The court next decided whether the involved officers used excessive force in firing back at Eric Smith. The court observed that the Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor [4] created an objective reasonableness test for deciding excessive force Fourth Amendment cases.The Fifth Circuit explained that in applying the Supreme Court’s reasonabless test, “We assess reasonableness ‘from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.’ [5] And we are rightly hesitant to ‘second-guess a police officer’s assessment, made on the scene, of the danger presented by a particular situation’ from the calm remove of chambers.” [6]
The court examined the facts and ruled: “Under these standards, we cannot conclude that it was objectively unreasonable for the officers to return fire at Smith — even knowing there was a substantial risk they might strike La’Mello — Smith, who that very morning had murdered two people, opened fire on law enforcement, and abducted his infant son, posed a grave and immediate threat to officers and to the public.”
The court further noted: “Ample precedent supports the reasonableness of using deadly force against an active shooter. Although we have never addressed a case in which officers returned fire at an active shooter knowing they might strike an innocent bystander, we have granted qualified immunity in similar situations — where officers used deadly force with an innocent person in dangerous proximity.” [7]
The court concluded that the officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment and were entitled to qualified immunity.
Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim
The court decided that the plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment claim must be governed by its analysis on the Fourth Amendment claim. As discussed above, no Fourth Amendment violation occurred. The absence of a Fourth Amendment violation foreclosed a favorable finding for the plaintiffs on the Fourteenth Amendment claim.
Nevertheless, the court did examine the Fourteenth Amendment claim and ruled against the plaintiffs on its merits. The court observed that the Supreme Court has made clear that Fourteenth Amendment violations can only be sustained when the actions of government officials can be characterized as “conscience shocking.” [8] The court explained that conscience shocking government conduct must involve actions that are brutal and grounded in a purpose or intent to cause harm to the victim. The court concluded by stating, “Nothing in the officers’ conduct meets that demanding threshold.” The officers were granted qualified immunity on the Fourteenth Amendment claim.
Conclusion
This case was truly tragic for Eric Smith’s murder victims; the unintentional shooting death of three-year-old La’ Mello Parker, and all the officers who were involved in the final shooting incident. Surely, none of the officers who fired their weapons that day intended to harm the baby. The grand jury cleared them of any criminal wrongdoing and the Fifth Circuit granted them qualified immunity from monetary liability. In so doing the court ruled that the conduct of the officers was reasonable and not excessive.The court explained its decision rationale by stating, “The officers here were forced to make … [a decision] in the split second after Smith fired on one of their own—'in haste, under pressure, and . . . without the luxury of a second chance.’ [9] We cannot second-guess that decision after the fact—from the remove and repose of our chambers.”
Likewise, I do not intend to second guess the brave officers involved in this matter. After all, they fired at a very treacherous subject who had already murdered two persons, kidnapped his own infant son and held him as a human shield during a dangerous vehicle pursuit and stand-off with police. Smith had already fired at police officers twice and gave them a substantial reason to believe he would quickly fire again. I agree with the Fifth Circuit that their conduct was reasonable and not excessive.
Police1’s mission, in part, is to assist law enforcement officers and leaders by examining past critical incidents to offer possible future solutions to life-threatening situations that may result in better outcomes for all parties. Accordingly, in the event of a need to confront a situation like the La’Mello Parker incident in the future, police supervisors and officers might consider an alternative plan of action.
In the La’ Mello case, Smith’s vehicle was disabled, and its tires were totally shredded. He was sitting with his infant son on his lap. He was surrounded by literally dozens of police officers and their vehicles. It was daylight and safe to say, the pursuit was over.
If this incident were repeated in the future, on-scene supervisory officials could order officers to back up to a safer distance from the subject’s vehicle; officers could obtain cover behind their vehicles or other suitable positions; traffic could be halted on both sides of the road leading to the standoff; and supervisors could order an experienced officer to begin surrender negotiations. Moreover, supervisors could order that one or more sniper positions be set in place to end the conflict if negotiations fail.
References
1. Estate of La’ Mello Parker v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety, et Al., (No. 24-60208)) (5th Cir., 6/6/2025).
2. This article will not examine or analyze the court’s rationale for granting standing to the plaintiffs.
3. Without an actual seizure of a person, a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim cannot move forward.Regarding the issue of the unintentional police shooting of a victim, the court explained, “Neither our circuit, nor others, have definitively resolved whether a seizure occurs when law enforcement intentionally targets a suspect but unintentionally strikes an innocent hostage.”
4. 490 U. S. 386 (1989).
5. Id. at 396.
6. Id.
7. Harmon v. City of Arlington, 16 F.4th 1159, 1163-1167 (5th Cir. 2021) (granting qualified immunity to an officer who fired at a fleeing suspect despite the close proximity of an innocent passenger).The court explained further, “Smith posed a clear and immediate threat to the safety of officers and the surrounding public. Smith had already fired at law enforcement once and had just done so again.”
8. County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 846 (1998).
9. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320 (1986).
