Minneapolis Is Quietly Trying to Throw Out the Lawsuit Against the Cop Who Killed Amir Locke

Just as the mayor publicly says he’s serious about reforming a racist police department.

A protest for Amir Locke in Minneapolis in February 2022Christian Monterrosa/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

The city of Minneapolis is asking a federal court to dismiss a lawsuit against the police officer who killed Amir Locke during a February 2022 raid that sparked protests.

Locke, a 22-year-old Black aspiring musician, was sleeping on a couch in his cousin’s Minneapolis home, a handgun at his side, when SWAT officers entered without knocking early in the morning. The officers were executing a search warrant related to a homicide, but Locke was not part of the investigation. Still, Officer Mark Hanneman shot him dead within 10 seconds. The killing, which occurred during the trial of three officers who participated in the murder of George Floyd, drew thousands of protesters.

Attorneys for the city filed their motion to dismiss Locke’s family’s suit on Thursday, ahead of a pretrial conference next week—and just one day before the Justice Department released a blistering report about widespread racism and brutality by the Minneapolis Police Department. The Justice Department also announced that the city would negotiate a federal consent decree to reform policing. “This work is foundational to the very health of our city,” Mayor Jacob Frey told reporters about the consent decree. “We have the power here to effect lasting change, to effect generational change, and we embrace that.”

According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Locke’s father, Andre “Buddy” Locke, said it felt strange to watch officials talk about police reform the same week that the city was trying to dismiss his family’s lawsuit. It was an “amazing day,” he said on Friday, but also “a slap in the face.”

The lawsuit names Officer Hanneman and the city of Minneapolis as defendants, accusing them of wrongful death and other violations of Locke’s constitutional rights. “Amir, like many Americans, had a handgun within his reach while he slept,” the complaint states, contesting the police’s claim that he pointed the gun at them. Last year, prosecutors declined to press criminal charges against Hanneman. But the lawsuit accuses him of shooting too quickly, without giving Locke a chance to come to his senses as he emerged from sleep. “Any reasonable officer would have understood that Amir needed an opportunity to realize who and what was surrounding him, and then provide Amir with an opportunity to disarm himself,” the complaint states. “Hanneman failed to give Amir any such opportunity.”

The lawsuit notes that police barged into the home with a no-knock warrant, a type of warrant that became more controversial after officers in Louisville, Kentucky, obtained one and then killed Breonna Taylor in 2020. The warrants are disproportionately leveled against people of color and often lead to causalities. Ahead of Locke’s death, Mayor Frey misleadingly claimed during a reelection campaign that he’d banned them in Minneapolis. (Afterward, Frey clarified that he sought to restrict their use, rather than banning them.) The complaint alleges that the city’s use of a no-knock warrant against Locke was “consistent with Minneapolis’s custom, pattern and practice of racial discrimination in policing.”

That language is similar to the Justice Department’s overall findings about the Minneapolis Police Department. The DOJ report, which examines policing in the city over the past several years and only makes a brief reference to Locke’s case, states that there is “reasonable cause to believe that MPD and the City engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives people of their rights under the Constitution and federal law.” 

On Thursday, the city’s attorneys argued the court should dismiss Locke’s family’s lawsuit because the officer was justified. “[F]iring his weapon at Amir Locke was objectively reasonable,” the city claimed, because “Hanneman could have reasonably believed Lock could kill or seriously injure him or another person. Hanneman is not liable for Locke’s death under any legal theory.” And, even while the Justice Department report makes clear there’s a pattern of unconstitutional conduct by the Minneapolis police, the city’s attorneys argued that Locke’s family did not submit any evidence demonstrating a pattern of relevant misconduct: “The Complaint provides no factual allegations demonstrating a widespread pattern of unconstitutional misconduct by MPD officers similar to the allegations here.” Misconduct unrelated to police raids would not be relevant, the attorneys argued.

The Justice Department’s report did not focus on no-knock raids, other than to mention Locke’s case, so it’s unclear how or if it will affect the lawsuit. Both sides are scheduled to return to court next week.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate