Columbus files for immunity in Kenneth Walker Case: Muscogee County Officers Kill Unarmed Black Businessman

Columbus is claiming immunity in the Kenneth Walker killing. In a motion filed Monday in federal district court, the city says it and the Muscogee County Sheriff's Department should be free from any claims related to Walker's Dec. 10, 2003, fatal shooting, because each has immunity under either state or federal law. Then-Deputy Sheriff David Glisson shot Walker in the head after the vehicle in which Walker was riding was pulled over on Interstate 185 during a drug investigation. No drugs or firearms were found in the vehicle, on Walker or on the other occupants. Walker's death sparked outrage and led to a wrongful death suit filed on behalf of his widow, Cheryl Walker. Among the defendants were the city government, Muscogee County Sheriff Ralph Johnson and his deputies. Among the lawsuit's claims were that deputies violated Walker's civil rights, discriminated on the basis of race, committed unlawful seizure and used excessive force. The suit also claimed the county with deliberate indifference failed to adequately train officers for the job. The motion filed Monday maintains the sheriff and his officers act as "an arm of the state," not the city, said Columbus City Attorney Clifton Fay. Because it acts on behalf of the state, the sheriff's office has immunity under the 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects states from suit, the motion claims. And, because the sheriff represents the state, the city is not responsible for his officers, the city argues. "Muscogee County has no control over their office or policies, procedures or customs," reads the motion. In addition, the county -- which in this case means the Columbus Consolidated Government -- claims its own sovereign immunity under state law, Fay said. The motion further argues that officers who made the traffic stop that resulted in Walker's death are themselves entitled to "qualified immunity," as they acted without malice in the performance of their duties. The information obtained in a drug investigation gave them reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle, and they had reason to arrest its occupants, because open containers of alcoholic beverages were inside, and that was illegal, Fay said. [MORE]