In a case that has attracted significant attention, the United States Department of Justice is arguing against a jail term for Brett Hankison, a former officer with the Louisville Metro Police Department. Hankison was earlier found guilty of violating rights under the pretense of legal authority for his conduct during the unfortunate 2020 operation at Breonna Taylor’s home, an event that sparked a national discussion on law enforcement methods and led to a federal inquiry into the Louisville department. This advice, detailed in a recent memo about sentencing, indicates a preference for a solution that excludes additional imprisonment for the ex-officer.
Hankison’s sentencing in November was a result of his actions during the disordered raid, during which he fired his weapon ten times into Taylor’s home. Lawyers highlighted that his bullets passed through a window and a sliding glass door, both covered by blinds and drapes, with a number of bullets going through walls into a neighboring apartment. Importantly, none of Hankison’s shots hit Breonna Taylor. The officers who fired shots that led to Taylor’s death were not indicted because their actions were seen as defensive fire after Taylor’s partner, Kenneth Walker, shot his gun when officers entered the apartment.
The Justice Department’s sentencing memo, filed late on a Wednesday, articulated a nuanced perspective on Hankison’s actions. It stated that “reasonable minds might disagree as to whether defendant Hankison’s conduct constituted a seizure under the Fourth Amendment in the first place.” Furthermore, the memo asserted that there “is no need for a prison sentence to protect the public from defendant.” This position is notable given a February ruling by a judge who determined that sufficient evidence existed for a jury to believe Taylor was still alive when Hankison fired his initial five rounds through the bedroom window.
The Justice Department’s suggestion specifically calls for a sentence of just one day’s imprisonment, matching exactly with the period Hankison had already spent behind bars after being initially charged. Some critics highlight that this sentencing proposal was not supported by the experienced line prosecutors within the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. Rather, it was signed by Robert J. Keenan, a senior advisor in the Civil Rights Division appointed during the Trump administration. Keenan has been linked in the past with the Justice Department’s attempts to contest a jury’s decision that convicted a former Los Angeles County deputy of a felony related to excessive force, adding another dimension to the debate about the department’s position.
The context of this recommendation also involves the significant transformations within the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. Since January, the division has undergone substantial overhauls in both policy and personnel, leading to a notable exodus of career professionals. This backdrop has fueled speculation regarding the influence of political appointments and policy shifts on the handling of sensitive cases like Hankison’s.
In the sentencing memorandum, the Justice Department also highlighted the atypical aspects of this case, pointing out that it “has no record of another instance where a police officer was prosecuted for violating another individual’s rights under the Fourth Amendment by returning gunfire and not causing harm to anyone.” This comment seeks to place the legal uniqueness of this case in context, which may set it apart from other legal actions concerning police misconduct.
The document also emphasized the lengthy legal battle to achieve a conviction of Hankison, pointing out that “two federal trials were eventually required to reach a unanimous guilty verdict.” Furthermore, “the jury found guilty on just one count,” even though the components of the charge and the underlying behavior were “essentially identical” across several counts. Hankison was previously found not guilty on a state charge connected to the incident, before the federal case.
“Here, multiple prosecutions against defendant Hankison were brought, and only one of three juries — the last one — found him guilty on these facts, and then only on one charge,” the memo elaborated. Despite this, the Justice Department conveyed its respect for the jury’s verdict, predicting that it would “almost certainly ensure that defendant Hankison never serves as a law enforcement officer again and will also likely ensure that he never legally possesses a firearm again.” This suggests that even without additional prison time, the conviction carries significant professional and personal consequences for Hankison.
The Justice Department’s sentencing recommendation has not been universally well-received. Samantha Trepel, a former official in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, expressed strong dissent in a LinkedIn post. Trepel specifically recalled that bullets fired by Hankison had “missed a sleeping baby by about two feet” during the raid. She characterized the Justice Department’s request as a “transparent, last minute political interference into a case that was tried by non-political, longtime career prosecutors who obtained this conviction in front of an all-white jury of Kentucky citizens before a Trump-appointed judge.” Her comments suggest a deep-seated concern among some legal professionals about the perceived political motivations behind the sentencing recommendation, particularly as it diverges from what might be expected in a case involving deprivation of civil rights.
Hankison is set to be sentenced on July 21. The judge managing the case will ultimately decide whether to follow the Justice Department’s suggestion or assign a different punishment. This decision will certainly be observed with keen interest as an indicator of responsibility in prominent police misconduct cases and the continuous discussions about justice and law enforcement in the United States.
