PHILADELPHIA - A Philadelphia police officer won't face liability for taking and passing around a photograph of a man who committed suicide by jumping off a bridge onto the road below.
Judge Mark Kearney's lengthy ruling issued Dec. 10 grants summary judgment to the City and officers named as defendants in Karen Brookins' lawsuit on behalf of the estate of her son Marcus Boone.
Boone was 22 when he committed suicide. One responding officer took a picture of Boone "suffering on the ground... then broadcasted his recklessness by immediately circulating this photo to his friends," Kearney wrote.
Brookins was sent the photo on Facebook nine days later and saw it again at a gas station near the same overpass. She sued, claiming her privacy rights were violated.
"We are disturbed by the officer's reprehensible decision to take and then circulate a picture of the fatally injured Mr. Boone," Kearney wrote.
"But this officer could not have known his now-admitted reckless lapse in judgment would violate Ms. Brookins' privacy rights. He is entitled to judicially created qualified immunity from constitutional scrutiny."
Boone suffered from mental health issues and drug addiction and had attempted suicide at least six times before he climbed to the ledge of an overpass where Knights Road crosses over Woodhaven Road on March 18, 2022.
For two-and-a-half hours, officers attempted to convince him to move to safety. Instead he jumped. Counterterrorism officer Christopher Culver leaned over the overpass and took a photo of Boone.
He sent to the photo to nine officers in his unit, and someone posted it to the crime-reporting app Citizens' App. Culver was forced to defend himself, and Kearney wrote a lack of clear guidance on whether Brookins was owed a right to privacy grants Culver immunity.
She did have a right to privacy, Kearney said, but Culver is not liable in damages "for his shocking departure from what we expect of our police."
Culver said a reasonable officer wouldn't have known taking a photo on a public road would violate someone else's privacy interests.
"(T)he cases Ms. Brookins cites involve privacy rights rooted in a source other than the Constitution, such as the Freedom of Information Act or common law," Kearney wrote.
"But Ms. Brookins does not claim a violation of her rights under statutory or common law. She invokes her privacy right under the Constitution. And the Supreme Court and our Court of Appeals have not recognized a constitutional privacy right to control images of a deceased child."
Culver also defeated intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, despite conduct embarrassing to the City, Kearney wrote. And bodycam footage showed other officers didn't violate Boone's rights, he added.
The City, likewise, was granted judgment on the claim it failed to train officers on privacy rights.
"The officer's conduct is inexcusable and unworthy of the trust we place in our police," Kearney concluded.
"It is also unprecedented in the law. So, the reckless officer is entitled to judicially created qualified immunity. Our holding does not excuse the officer's conduct."