FRAMINGHAM - A federal judge refused Wednesday to dismiss civil rights claims against a Framingham police officer who accidentally shot and killed an unarmed man during a SWAT raid in 2011 while the 68-year-old was lying face down on the floor of his apartment.

U.S. District Court Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV ruled Wednesday that Framingham Police Officer Paul Duncan, a member of the SWAT team, may have violated the victim’s constitutional rights when Duncan pointed a rifle at the man’s head and put his finger on the trigger.

The victim, Eurie Stamps Sr., was not a target of the raid and he had no history of violence, according to the judge’s ruling. SWAT team members were specifically informed that Stamps posed no known threat to the police, and he did not struggle or resist police orders, according to the ruling.

“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 on a motion for summary judgment.

Stamps was killed Jan. 5, 2011, inside his first-floor apartment at 26 Fountain St., where the retired MBTA maintenance worker and grandfather of 12 lived with his wife and stepson.

Police were granted a warrant to search the apartment after receiving a report that the stepson, Joseph Bushfan, and others were selling crack cocaine from the home. Detectives believed Bushfan and two other men in the apartment were affiliated with Boston gangs, according to the judge’s ruling.

After breaking down the front door and rushing into the apartment, two officers ordered Stamps to get on the floor when they encountered him in a hallway. He complied, placing his hands near his head. While the officers left to continue searching the apartment, Duncan - one of 11 officers involved in the operation - approached, stood over and pointed an M4 rifle at Stamps, placing his finger inside the trigger guard and ultimately firing a shot that struck Stamps in the head, killing him.

“At no point did Stamps do or say anything to suggest that he was a threat to the police or anyone else, or to suggest that he was not cooperating,” the ruling reads.

Stamps’ wife, Norma Stamps, and his son, Eurie Stamps Jr., filed a civil rights lawsuit against Duncan and the town in 2012. They allege Duncan violated the elder Stamps' constitutional rights and also caused a wrongful death under state law.

The town moved for summary judgment on nine of 10 counts in the suit, arguing the accidental shooting cannot violate a constitutional right, and that Duncan’s decision to point a gun at Stamps was objectively reasonable. The town also argued Duncan is entitled to qualified immunity because a constitutional right to be free from unintentional shootings was not clearly established at the time of the incident.

In his ruling Wednesday, Saylor granted the town’s request to drop seven of the nine counts, including claims that Duncan violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and acted with "reckless or callous indifference" to Stamps' civil rights. Saylor also agreed to dismiss claims the shooting was intentional, and that the town failed to properly train and supervise its police officers.

Saylor ruled two of the remaining claims should go to trial. Even though the shooting was accidental, questions remain about whether Duncan’s decision to point his rifle at Stamps - an elderly man who was lying face-down in his apartment and was not a suspect - was reasonable.

The decision to restrain Stamps by pointing a semi-automatic weapon at his head posed an extremely high level of potential harm, Saylor wrote. That risk was greatly increased by Duncan’s decision to turn off the safety and place his finger in the trigger guard, he wrote. The judge found no “obvious justification or need” for the move, which violated police department procedures, according to the ruling.

“Under the circumstances, an objectively reasonable officer would have known that the combination of the lack of serious threat posed by the subject, the extremely high risk of harm from the firearm, and the unnecessary or unjustified nature of the police action rendered the officer’s conduct unreasonable,” Saylor wrote.

In a statement sent to the Daily News, Framingham Town Manager Robert J. Halpin said he was able to acknowledge the ruling but could not comment on it in much detail.

"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," he said.

"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.”

In 2011, the Middlesex district attorney's office investigated, ruled the shooting was accidental and decided no criminal charges were warranted.

Daily News staff writer Jonathan Phelps contributed to this report. Jim Haddadin can be reached at 617-863-7144 or jhaddadin@wickedlocal.com. Follow him on Twitter: @JimHaddadin.