2014-08
Plumhoff
et al v. Rickard
United States Supreme Court
No. 12-1117.
Decided May 27, 2014
(Created by Philip J. Baca, Esq. pbaca@co.jefferson.co.us)
A claim that law-enforcement officers used excessive force to
effect a seizure is governed by the Fourth Amendment’s “reasonableness”
standard.
Facts:
Near midnight on July 18, 2004,
Lt. Forthman of the West Memphis, Arkansas PD pulled over a Honda Accord
because the car had only one headlight. Rickard was the driver of the Accord,
and Kelly Allen was the passenger. Forthman noticed an indentation, “‘roughly
the size of a head or a basketball’” in the windshield of the car. He asked Rickard if he had been drinking, and
Rickard responded that he had not. Because Rickard failed to produce his
driver’s license and appeared nervous, Forthman asked him to step out of the
car. Rather than comply, Rickard sped away.
Forthman gave chase and was soon joined by five other police
cruisers driven by Sergeant Vance Plumhoff and Officers Jimmy Evans, Lance
Ellis, Troy Galtelli, and John Gardner. The officers pursued Rickard east on I-
40 toward Memphis, Tennessee. While on I-40, they attempted to stop Rickard
using a “rolling roadblock,” but they were unsuccessful. Reports described the
vehicles as “swerving through traffic at high speeds,” with cars attaining
speeds over 100 miles per hour.
During the chase, Rickard
and the officers passed more than two dozen vehicles. Rickard
exited I-40 in Memphis, and shortly afterward he made “a quick right
turn,” causing “contact to occur” between his car and Officer Evans’ cruiser.
As a result of that contact, Rickard’s car spun out into a parking lot and
collided with Plumhoff’s cruiser. In danger of being cornered, Rickard put his
car into reverse in an attempt to escape. As he did so, Evans and Plumhoff got
out of their cruisers and approached Rickard’s car, and Evans, gun in hand,
pounded on the passenger-side window. At that point, Rickard’s car “made
contact with” yet another police cruiser. Rickard’s tires started spinning, and
his car “was rocking back and forth,” indicating that Rickard was using the
accelerator even though his bumper was flush against a police cruiser. At that
point, Plumhoff fired three shots into Rickard’s car. Rickard then “reversed in
a 180 degree arc” and maneuvered onto another street, forcing Ellis to step to
his right to avoid the vehicle. As Rickard continued fleeing down that street,
Gardner and Galtelli fired 12 shots toward Rickard’s car, bringing the total
number of shots fired during this incident to 15.
Rickard then lost control of the car and crashed into a building.
Rickard and Allen both died from some combination of gunshot wounds and
injuries suffered in the crash that ended the chase.
Issue:
Did the officers violate the Rickard’s
Fourth Amendment rights by using deadly force and firing 15 rounds into his car
to terminate the chase? No.
Court
Decision:
The District Court and 6th
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Rickard. The US Supreme Court reversed
the decisions of the lower courts.
Restatement
of Law:
A claim that
law-enforcement officers used excessive force to effect a seizure is governed
by the Fourth Amendment’s “reasonableness” standard. See Graham
v. Connor, 490 U. S. 386 (1989); Tennessee v. Garner,
471 U. S. 1 (1985). In Graham, we held that determining the objective
reasonableness of a particular seizure under the Fourth Amendment “requires a
careful balancing of the nature and quality of the intrusion on the
individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental
interests at stake.” 490 U. S., at 396. The inquiry requires
analyzing the totality of the circumstances. See ibid.
We analyze this question
from the perspective “of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with
the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Ibid. We thus “allow
for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in
circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount
of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” Id., at
396–397.
A “police officer’s attempt to terminate
a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent
bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the
fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 at
385 (2007).
An
official sued under §1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless
it is shown that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that
was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct. Ashcroft
v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. ___, ___ (2011).
Court
Reasoning:
The chase in this case
exceeded 100 miles per hour and lasted over five minutes. During that chase,
Rickard passed more than two dozen other vehicles, several of which were forced
to alter course. Rickard’s outrageously reckless driving posed a grave public safety
risk. And while it is true that Rickard’s car collided with a police
car and came temporarily to a near standstill that did not end the chase. Seconds
later, Rickard resumed maneuvering his car. Just before the shots were fired,
when the front bumper of his car was flush with that of one of the police
cruisers, Rickard was obviously pushing down on the accelerator because the
car’s wheels were spinning, and then Rickard threw the car into reverse “in an
attempt to escape.”
We
reject that argument that the officers acted unreasonably in firing a total of
15 shots. It stands to reason that, if police officers are justified in firing at
a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need
not stop shooting until the threat has ended.
It was certainly not
clearly established law at the time of the shooting in this case that the
number of shots fired, under the circumstances present here, rendered the use
of force excessive.
Bottom
Line:
Under
these facts, the Fourth Amendment did not prohibit officers from using deadly
force when employed to terminate the dangerous car chase that Rickard
precipitated. 
No comments:
Post a Comment