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 Department of Justice’s recommendation specifically requests a sentence of one day of incarceration, a duration that corresponds precisely to the time Hankison already spent in custody following his initial booking on charges. A point of contention for some observers is the fact that this sentencing memo was not endorsed by career line prosecutors within the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. Instead, it bears the signature of Robert J. Keenan, a senior counsel in the Civil Rights Division who held an appointment during the Trump administration. Keenan has been previously associated with the Justice Department’s efforts to overturn a jury verdict that found a former Los Angeles County deputy guilty of a felony in an excessive force case, adding another layer to the discussion surrounding the department’s stance.
The setting for this suggestion includes the important changes happening in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. Beginning in January, there have been major revisions in both policies and staff, resulting in a significant departure of long-standing professionals. This situation has sparked discussions about how political appointments and alterations in policy might affect the management of delicate cases such as Hankison’s.
In the sentencing memo, the Justice Department additionally commented on the unique nature of this prosecution, noting that it “is unaware of another prosecution in which a police officer has been charged with depriving the rights of another person under the Fourth Amendment for returning fire and not injuring anyone.” This statement aims to contextualize the case’s distinct legal characteristics, potentially differentiating it from other police misconduct prosecutions.
The memo further highlighted the protracted legal journey to secure a conviction against Hankison, noting that “two federal trials were ultimately necessary to obtain a unanimous verdict of guilt.” Even then, “the jury convicted on only one count,” despite the elements of the charge and the underlying conduct being “essentially the same” across multiple counts. Hankison had also been acquitted on a state charge related to the incident, preceding the federal proceedings.
“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.
