Federal appeals court rejects Minneapolis officer’s bid to dismiss Amir Locke Lawsuit

A federal appeals court has rejected Minneapolis police officer Mark Hanneman’s attempt to dismiss a civil lawsuit filed by the parents of Amir Locke, the 22-year-old Black man he fatally shot during a no-knock SWAT raid in 2022.

In a ruling issued this week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed Hanneman’s appeal for dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity — a legal defense that protects officers from civil lawsuits unless they violate clearly established constitutional rights. The court said it lacked jurisdiction to intervene because the appeal rested on disputed facts, which must be resolved at the trial court level.

The decision means the lawsuit brought by Locke’s family will proceed.

Locke’s parents, Karen Wells and Andre Locke, filed suit under federal civil rights law and Minnesota’s wrongful death statute. They argue Hanneman violated their son’s Fourth Amendment rights and that the City of Minneapolis failed to train officers or stop longstanding unconstitutional practices that led to Locke’s death.

The shooting occurred on Feb. 2, 2022, after Minneapolis SWAT officers executed a no-knock warrant in a downtown apartment. Locke, who was not a suspect in the investigation, was asleep on a couch when police entered. Body camera footage shows him holding a handgun — which he legally owned — before the officer fired three fatal shots.

Lawyers for Hanneman and the city argued that the body camera footage showed Locke raising and pointing the gun at officers, and that Hanneman reasonably feared for his life. They asked the district court to grant Hanneman qualified immunity and dismiss the suit. But the district court declined, ruling that the footage was too dark and inconclusive to disprove the family’s claims.

According to the complaint — and based on what the lower court called “dim, unclear images” — Locke was in the process of lowering the barrel of his gun toward the ground and attempting to comply with commands when he was shot. The court found it plausible that Locke never aimed the weapon at police.

On appeal, Hanneman’s attorneys pointed to a single still image they said showed Locke pointing the gun. But the appellate court rejected that interpretation, writing: “The image does not show definitively what direction the barrel is pointing or whether officers are located in the direction of the barrel.”

“Locke’s actions are obscured by darkness or the officers themselves,” the judges wrote.

Because of the ambiguity, the court concluded it had no authority to override the district court’s findings at this stage.

The Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, which filed a supporting brief, argued that Hanneman should be immune from the lawsuit even if Locke never raised the gun. But the Eighth Circuit declined to consider that argument because it hadn’t been raised in earlier court proceedings.

The ruling does not determine whether Hanneman acted unlawfully — only that the case can move forward and be decided based on the evidence presented at trial.

The decision comes as Hanneman’s role in the department remains under scrutiny. More than two years after the shooting, Minneapolis officials quietly promoted Hanneman, now a sergeant, to lead the department’s use-of-force training — a move that civil rights advocates and city leaders criticized as a return to pre-George Floyd policing norms.

With the appeal dismissed, the Locke family’s claims against both Hanneman and the city will now proceed in federal district court.