In a development that has drawn considerable scrutiny, the United States Department of Justice is advocating against a prison sentence for Brett Hankison, a former Louisville Metro Police Department detective. Hankison was previously convicted of deprivation of rights under color of law in connection with his actions during the ill-fated 2020 raid on Breonna Taylor’s residence, an incident that ignited a nationwide debate on policing practices and prompted a federal investigation into the Louisville force. This recommendation, outlined in a recent sentencing memo, suggests a desire for a resolution that avoids further incarceration for the former 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 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.
In this case, several legal actions were taken against defendant Hankison, with only one of three juries — the final one — determining his guilt based on these circumstances, and even then, it was solely for one charge,” the memo clarified. Regardless, the Justice Department expressed its regard for the jury’s decision, anticipating that it would “almost certainly guarantee that defendant Hankison never works as a police officer again and will also probably ensure that he never legally owns a firearm again.” This indicates that even without further imprisonment, the conviction has serious career and personal impacts 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 scheduled for sentencing on July 21. The judge overseeing the case will ultimately determine whether to accept the Justice Department’s recommendation or impose a different sentence. The decision will undoubtedly be closely watched as a gauge of accountability in high-profile police misconduct cases and the ongoing debates surrounding justice and law enforcement in the United States.
