Civil Rights Update: Sixth Circuit Holds That Accidental Shooting By Police Can Constitute “Seizure” Under Fourth Amendment

February 18, 2026: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which hears appeals arising out of federal courts in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, has issued an important ruling on Fourth Amendment excessive force law, clarifying when someone is considered “seized” if struck by a police officer’s bullet — even if they were not the officer’s intended target. The case is Kilnapp v. City of Cleveland, Ohio.

The case began in 2020 when City of Cleveland police officers Bailey Gannon and Jennifer Kilnapp responded to a reported armed suspect. During the encounter inside a home, Gannon fired his weapon. One of Gannon’s bullets struck Kilnapp, who was also on duty, even though he did not intend to shoot her.

Kilnapp sued Gannon, claiming the shooting violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable use of force. The central legal question on appeal was whether being hit by a bullet could qualify as a “seizure” of her person under the Constitution — and, if so, whether Gannon was entitled to qualified immunity.

The panel, in an opinion by Judge Karen Nelson Moore held that when a police officer intentionally fires a weapon in a way that objectively manifests an intent to restrain, any person struck by that bullet has been “seized” under the Fourth Amendment.

Drawing on Supreme Court precedent, the court explained that a Fourth Amendment “seizure” occurs not only when someone is physically apprehended, but also when force is applied that objectively signals an intent to restrain freedom of movement. Simply put: if a bullet was fired under circumstances showing an attempt to stop someone, getting hit by that bullet counts as a constitutional “seizure” even if you weren’t the intended target.

Even though Kilnapp was seized under this definition, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the law was not clearly established at the time of the shooting — meaning that Gannon could not have known his conduct was unlawful. As a result, Gannon was entitled to qualified immunity, and the court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case.

This ruling has important implications for police use-of-force litigation:

• It expands the concept of “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment to include situations where someone is hit by intentional force—even if unintended as to that particular person.

• It signals that circuits should focus on the objective circumstances of the shooting (not just the officer’s subjective intent toward a specific individual).

• But it also shows that qualified immunity still protects officers when the legal contours are not clearly defined at the time.

The Sixth Circuit has clarified that getting hit by a police bullet can constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure if the shooting shows an objective intent to restrain, even if the officer didn’t aim at the person who was struck. However, because the law wasn’t clearly established in 2020, the officer in this case was still shielded by qualified immunity. Hopefully, this ruling will create an avenue for justice for future unintended victims of police shootings.

Civil rights litigation is extremely complex, and all lawyers benefit from experienced co-counsel. If you are navigating a police misconduct case, contact AMG Legal today.