City moves for dismissal of shooting suit
PATERSON — Lawyers representing the city of Paterson are arguing that Police Officer Jerry Moravek's conduct was “objectively reasonable” when he shot Khalif Cooper, a fleeing gun suspect, in the back in June 2022.
In an attempt to get Cooper's $50 million federal lawsuit against Paterson dismissed, the city lawyers argued in recently filed court papers that Moravek saw the 29-year-old man holding a handgun as he ran away from the scene of gunshots.
“It was objectively reasonable at that moment for Officer Moravek to conclude that Plaintiff was the individual who had fired the shots and that he was armed and presented a continued threat of serious physical harm to the officer or others,” Paterson's lawyers wrote in a dismissal motion filed last month. “Officer Moravek repeatedly instructed Plaintiff to drop the weapon; however, Plaintiff did not comply or stop his continued flight.”
The city legal team's account of the shooting contrasted with the statements released in February by the New Jersey Attorney General's Office when state officials filed aggravated assault and misconduct charges against Moravek.
“Every case deserves a thorough investigation and here we have determined that the use of deadly force was not justified,” Attorney General Matthew Platkin said of the shooting by Moravek. “A young man's life will never be the same because of the unnecessary action by this officer, which contradicted his police training and his oath to protect and preserve life.”
Cooper was paralyzed because of the injuries he suffered in the shooting, according to his lawyers.
After the criminal charges were filed, Moravek was placed on paid administrative leave, pending the outcome of the case.
A key point of dispute has been whether Cooper was wielding a gun when Moravek chased him along the streets of Paterson's 1st Ward. The video recording from Moravek's body-worn camera showed the officer running toward gunfire when Cooper ran past him in the opposite direction.
Moravek immediately called out to Cooper to “drop the gun,” but the video recording never provided a clear view showing whether the young man was holding a weapon.
While down on the ground after being shot, Cooper told the cop he didn't have a gun, the video showed. Minutes after the shooting, another Paterson police officer found a gun on the ground along the path where the chase had taken place, the video showed. But state authorities have said they did not find DNA or fingerprint evidence connecting the gun to Cooper.
Cooper's lawyers in court records filed last week asserted that the young man never confronted Moravek during the incident.
“In fact, the video shows that he ran past Officer Moravek in the opposite direction of where the shots were fired,” Cooper's lawyers asserted. “It is also undisputed that the video showed that the Plaintiff did not make any motions toward the officer or to others in the immediate area while he was being pursued by Defendant Moravek that could be reasonably interpreted as a threat to Officer Moravek or people in the area during Moravek's 10-15 seconds pursuit prior to firing his weapon.”
In a legal brief filed on Monday, the city's lawyers called the assertions about Cooper not making a motion toward Moravek “a red herring.”
“It matters not that Mr. Cooper did not make a subjectively threatening motion toward an officer or member of the public,” said Paterson's lawyers. “Moravek's actions were objectively reasonable because of what did happen, not what did not happen. The video clearly demonstrates that Moravek heard gun shots, ran toward them, encountered Cooper running in the opposite direction with a gun and pursued Cooper to prevent him from using the gun elsewhere.”
The city lawyers said Cooper didn't surrender when Moravek yelled for him to “drop the gun.”
“Given these facts, it was objectively reasonable for an officer in Moravek's position to believe that (1) Cooper had a gun,” wrote the city lawyers, “and (2) Cooper was a danger to others because he just discharged that gun in public. As such, use of deadly force was warranted to protect others.”
The two sides are scheduled to meet with the federal judge next week to set up a schedule for proceeding with the case.