The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has affirmed a lower court's denial of immunity to Framingham Police Officer Paul Duncan on Friday, Feb. 5.

Both sides agree on that fact, but they differ on the circumstances just before the shooting.

Duncan accidentally shot and killed Eurie Stamps, an unarmed grandfather of 12, as he lay on the floor with his hands up during a 2011 SWAT team raid on his home.

Duncan's lawyer Leonard Kesten said the Framingham SWAT team member was immune from liability because the shooting was accidental and happened while he was acting as a Framingham Police officer. Kesten argued an accidental shooting does not violate an individual's Fourth Amendment Constitutional rights.

"This is a landmark decision. It confirms that, when police officers needlessly put members of the public at risk, the lives of those civilians matter," said Matthew R. Segal, legal director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. "Victims of undue police violence deserve constitutional protection, and this opinion says that they have it."

Stamps's family's lawyer has argued that the Framingham SWAT team member held a gun over Stamps head, with his finger on the trigger.

Dunan's lawyer has stated that Duncan tripped, while trying to step over Stamps, who was lying face down on the floor of his apartment, after police broke down the doors during a drug raid.

The ACLU has supported Stamps' family in the case. That organization, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, the NAACP New England Area Conference, the National Bar Association and the Cato Institute, a;; filed briefs in support of the Stamps' family in the case of Stamps vs the Town of Framingham.

Framingham Police raided Stamps' home on January 5, 2011, because they believed Stamps' stepson and two associates had been selling drugs in the home.

Police broke through the home's windows and doors and set off a "flash-bang" grenade to disorient anyone inside. Placed in a terrifying situation, Stamps got down on his stomach with his hands up, according to the ACLU.

The lawsuit alleges that, while other officers moved through the home, Officer Duncan pointed an M-4 rifle at Stamps with its selector on "semi-automatic" rather than "safe," and with his finger on the trigger.

Duncan accidentally fired, killing Stamps, a retired MBTA employee.

Officer Duncan's lawyer has argued that he is immune from liability for violating Stamps' constitutional rights.

Federal law prohibits officers from unreasonably aiming firearms at innocent people.

The lawyer for the Stamps family argued that is what Officer Duncan did to Stamps.

"Duncan's actions are symptomatic of a larger problem in policing. The way in which the police engage communities of color reveals bias and a general lack of empathy, which can oftentimes have deadly results. The reason activists take to the streets declaring 'Black Lives Matter' is because of cases like this," said Rahsaan D. Hall, director of the ACLU of Massachusetts Racial Justice Program, in a press release.

The case could now be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. That decision would be up to Duncan's lawyer or the Town of Framingham.

In 2014, when the first district court made its ruling in the case Framingham Town Manager Bob Halpin made a statement.

"I am able to acknowledge that there has been a ruling dismissing a number of counts against the Town of Framingham and Officer Paul Duncan in the Stamps v. Framingham case," said Framingham Town Manager Bob Halpin to Framingham Patch in December 2014. "The main impact of the dismissed counts is that the judge concluded that Officer Paul Duncan cannot be held personally liable for punitive damages as a result of this tragic accident. Under today's decision it remains to be seen whether the Town of Framingham as the municipal employer or its insurer will be held liable for compensatory damages to Mr. Stamps family as a result of the tragic accident."

Halpin, who was not Town Manager when the SWAT incident took place, said in 2014 "Since this case remains active, I have no further comment other than to emphasize that nothing in today's rulings or future rulings in any way changes the nature of this tragic accident."

The Middlesex District Attorney's office investigated the case and in March 2011, concluded the SWAT shooting was accidental.

An independent consultant, hired by the Town of Framingham, reviewed the SWAT team's actions during the raid and concluded in September 2011, they were appropriate.

In 2013, Framingham made the decision to disband its SWAT team.

On Christmas Eve in 2014, a federal judge ruled a Framingham Police Officer and SWAT team member may have violated a victim's constitutional rights.

U.S. District Court Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV ruled Dec. 24 that Framingham Police Officer Paul Duncan, when he pointed a gun Eurie Stamps Sr's head on Jan. 25, 2011 and put his finger on the trigger and fatally shot him during a drug raid, may have violated Stamps' rights and that a civil lawsuit can go to a jury. Stamps Sr., was not the target of the raid.

"Under the circumstances, a reasonable jury could find that Duncan's actions leading up to the shooting were objectively unreasonable, and therefore that he employed excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment," Saylor ruled, according to court documents.

***

Photo of the Stamps family courtesy of the ACLU website.