# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 22 04

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ph il li p R an so m

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ant ho ny Grisa fe, b ot h i n h is off ic ia l an d h is in di vi du al cap aci ty; Jo hn Ran dl e,

bo th in hi s o ffi ci al an d h is in di vi du al cap aci ty; Ty ro ne Ph il li ps ; An ge la

Co na way -Dawd y

, bo th in he r of fic ia l an d h er i nd iv id ua l ca pa ci ty; Tho m as Deari ng

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el la nt

s

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t

fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

13 , 20 15

Fil ed : J un e 2 2, 2 01 5

[Pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , COLLOTO N and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Ph il li p Ran so m su ed Kan sa s Ci ty Po li ce Offi cers Ty ro ne Ph il li ps an d Ang el a

Co na way -Dawd y

, Kan sa s Ci ty Po li ce Dete ct iv es Ant ho ny Gris afe an d Ju st in Ran dl e,

an d Kan sa s Ci ty Po li ce Serg ean t Thomas Deari ng un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83

, al le gi ngth at th e de fen da nt s vi ol at ed hi s rig ht s un de r th e Fo ur th an d Fo ur te en th Am en dm en ts

of th e Co ns ti tu ti on . The de fen da nt s m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t an d arg ue d th at

th ey were en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at th ere were

di sp ut ed is su es of m at eri al fact an d de ni ed th e m ot io n. The de fen da nt s app eal

. W e

rev ers e an d d ire ct en try of jud gm en t fo r th e d efen da nt s.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

The fact s he re are reci te d “ in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le ” to Ran so m

, gi vi ng hi m

“ th e be n e f

i t o f al l reas on ab le in fere nc es ,” be cau se he is th e no n- m ov in g pa rty.

W il li am s v . Hol le y , 76 4 F .3d 97 6, 9 79 (8t h C ir. 2 01 4) (qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.

It wa s a d ark an d rain y ev en in g on Nov em be r 11

, 20 10

. Ph il li p R an so m was

dr iv in g ho m e fro m wor k in Le n e x a

, Kan sa s, to Kan sa s Ci ty, Mi ss ou ri. Two m il es

be fo re hi s ex it

, Ran so m ’s va n be ga n ba ck fir in g, an d he pu ll ed ov er to th e si de of th e

ro ad on Greg or y

Bo ul ev ard

, ne ar I-43 5. The so un ds fro m hi s v an ale rte d s om eo ne

,

who cal le d 91 1 an d r e p o r t ed th at sh ot s ha d be en fir ed fro m or ne ar a whi te va n,

th ou gh th e cal le r di d no t rep or t ha vi ng se en fla sh es in di cat iv e of gu nf ire co m in g fro m

th e car. O f

f i c e rs Ty ro ne Ph il li ps an d Ang el a Co na way (n ow Co na way -Dawd y )

res po nd ed to th e cal l an d d ro ve th ei r sq ua d c ar t owa rd th e in te rs ect io n.

W ha t hap pe ne d on ce Office rs Ph il li ps an d C on away arri ve d a t th e sc en e was

reco rd ed by the da sh bo ard cam era in si de th e of fic ers ’ sq ua d car. The di st ric t co ur t

di d no t di sc us s th e vi de o or th e sc en e as reco rd ed by th e cam era. Bu t th e vi de o was

av ai la bl e to th e co ur t an d th e pa rti es , a nd ne it he r pa rty dis pu te s t he accu racy o f th e

vi de o or all eg es th at it ha s b een alt ered in an y way

. Thu s, we wil l “ vi ew[] th e fact s

in th e li gh t d ep ic te d b y

th e v id eo ta pe .” Sco tt v. Harr is , 55 0 U.S. 3 72 , 38 1 (2 00 7)

.

The vi de o sh ows th e fo ll owi ng : The of fic ers pa ss by R a n s o m’s v a n as th ey

arri ve at th e sc en e. Offi cer Co n a w a y sa y s, “ The re’s pr ob ab ly th e va n,” whi ch is

-2

-whi te , cor ro bo rat in g t he cal l. The car p ul ls be hi nd Ran so m ’s v an , wh ic h h as on it s

ha zard li gh ts

. Onl y se co nd s la te r, th e va n ba ck fir es

. (If th e vi ewer watc he s cl os el y

,

sp ark s can be se en sh oo ti ng ou t fro m th e va n’s ta il pi pe ; th e ta il pi pe vi si bl y sh ak es as

it fir es .) Ju st a f

t e r th e ba ck fir e, th e dr iv er’s-s id e do or of th e va n op en s. Offi cer

Ph il li ps y el ls

, “ Get ba ck in th e car.” Ran so m ap pe ars no t to he ar Offi cer Ph il li ps an d

st ep s ou t of

th e v an . As so on as h e d oe s, t he two off ic ers fir e a t ot al of ei gh t sh ot s.

Ran so m do es no t reac t as if he ha s be en hi t by an y sh ot

, no r do es he ap pe ar to no ti ce 1

th at th e of

fic ers ha ve fir ed at hi m

. In st ead

, he br ie fly lo ok s aro un d an d th en do wn at

th e ta il pi pe of th e va n, sh ak es hi s he ad si de -to -s id e, an d tu rn s an d walk s to th e fro nt

of th e va n. The of

fic ers rep or t “ sh ot s fir ed ” in to th e rad io

. Mo m en ts la te r, Ran so m

rai se s hi s ha nd s fro m th e fro nt of hi s va n. Offi cer Ph il li ps y el ls

, “ Lay on th e gr ou nd .”

Ran so m lo wers hi s h an ds to th e si de of t he va n, b ut he st ay s in fro nt of t he ve hi cl e.

Onl y hi s ha nd s are vi si bl e. Offi cer Ph il li ps as ks Ran so m

, “ W he re’s it co m in g fro m ? ,”

to whi ch Ran so m

rep li es , “ My va n i s b ack fir in g.” Offic er Ph il li ps ask s, “ You r va n

is ba ck fir in g? ” bu t th en ad ds

, “ No, it ’s no t. Our win do w’ s sh ot ou t!” Offi cer Ph il li ps 2

th en or de rs Ran so m to tu rn aro un d an d walk to ward th e sq ua d car. Ran so m co m pl ie s

an d wal ks ba ck ward , to ward th e sq ua d c ar an d o ut of s ig ht of t he cam era.

Offi cer Ph il li ps sa y s to Offi cer Co na way

, “ Tha t di dn ’t so un d li ke a ba ck fir e to

me. ” O f f i c e r Co na way ag rees

. Offi cer Ph il li ps sa y s he he ard “ m or e th an on e. I

he ard , l ik e, fo ur .” The Offi cers req ue st ba ck -u p b ecau se th ey be li ev e th ere m ay be

an ot he r pe rs on th ere who ha d fir ed th e sh ot s, po ss ib ly fro m a di tc h al on g th e si de of

Gr e g o ry Bo ul ev ard

. Offi cer Ph il li ps as ks Ran so m if he ha s be en sh ot ; Ran so m ’s

res po ns e is in au di bl e. Ran so m la te r tri es to ex pl ai n th at th e so un d was fro m hi s va n

ba ck fir in g, bu t Off

i c e r P hi ll ip s sa y s, “ No, th at was a gu ns ho t.” The of fic ers te ll

The pa rti es st ip ul at e th at no ne of th e bu ll et s fir ed b y O f f i cers Ph il li ps an d 1

Co na way st ru ck Ran so m

.

A s was la te r de te rm in ed

, th e br ok en win do w an d bu ll et ho le s fo un d i n t h e 2

sq ua d c ar were cau se d b y th e ri co ch et in g b ul le ts fir ed fro m th e o ffi cers ’ own gu ns

.

-3

-Ran so m th ey rece iv ed a cal l ab ou t sh ot s be in g fir ed an d as k why he was ge tt in g ou t

of hi s car. He ex pl ai ns th at he th ou gh t hi s va n was cat ch in g fir e. N u mer o u s ot he r

of fic ers arri ve an d cl os e of

f th e area to th e pu bl ic

. Near th e en d of th e vi de o, Offi cer

Ph il li ps can be he ard te ll in g an ot he r of fic er th at he was su re he he ard th e so un d of a

gu ns ho t, n ot a ba ck fir e, an d t ha t h e h eard it m or e th an on ce.

I n D ecember 20 12

, Ran so m fil ed a la wsu it in st at e co ur t ag ai ns t t h e t w o

of fic ers who were at th e sc en e, two de te ct iv es who la te r in ve st ig at ed th e “ sh oo ti ng ,”

an d a Kan sa s Ci ty se rg ean t. The de fen da nt s rem ov ed th e act io n to fed eral co ur t, an d

in Sep te m be r 20 13

, Ran so m fil ed a se co nd am en de d co m pl ai nt

, rai si ng cl ai m s un de r

42 U.S.C. § 19 83

. Ran s o m al le ge s th at th e de fen da nt s se iz ed hi m at th e sc en e an d

de ta in ed hi m fo r a to ta l of fo ur ho ur s, in cl ud in g fo r “ at le as t 34 m in u te s an d

29 se co nd s” at th e Kan sa s Ci ty Po li ce Dep art m en t. He sa y s he was no t “ free to go ”

un ti l t ol d s o b y

on e o f th e d et ect iv es at th e po li ce dep art m en t. H e cl ai m s ex ces si ve

fo rce was us ed ag ai ns t hi m

, th at he was un reas on ab ly se i z e d

, a n d th at he was

de pr iv ed of h is li be rty and he ld ag ai ns t h is wil l wi th ou t p ro ba bl e cau se

.

Dur in g d is co ve ry , var io us wit ne ss es were d ep os ed . R an so m tes ti fie d t ha t h e

sa w th e of

fic ers U-tu rn an d pu ll be hi nd hi m ; at th at ti m e, hi s va n st il l was ba ck fir in g.

Ran so m di d no t di sp ut e th e of fic ers ’ be li ef th at th ey he ard m ul ti pl e ba ck fir es

, an d he

ag reed th at th e so un d of th e ba ck fir es co ul d eas il y be m is ta ke n fo r gu ns ho ts

. He di d

no t real iz e, ho wev er, th at th e of fic ers fir ed sh ot s at h i m; i n s t e a d, he th ou gh t th ei r

sh ot s wer e t h e so un d of hi s va n ba ck fir in g. He te st ifi ed

, ho wev er, th at a pi ece of

w h at he “ as su m ed

. . . was gl as s

. . . gr azed th e si de of m y he ad ,” bu t he wa s n o t

bl eed in g fro m it

. Whe n Ran so m sa w Of fic er Co na way wit h he r weap on dr awn , h e

pu t up hi s ha nd s. He al so no ti ced at th at ti m e th at th e sq ua d car was “ sh ot up ” an d

th at a win do w had be en sh ot ou t.

Abo ut fiv e m in ut es aft er he wa s h a nd cu ffed

, Ran so m te st ifi ed

, he was ta ke n

to a po li ce wag on th at arri ve d. He ha d no fu rth er con ta ct wit h Office rs Ph il li ps an d

-4

-Co na way

. He ev en tu al ly ta lk ed wit h Dete ct iv es Ran dl e an d Gris afe, who were th ere

to in ve st ig at e th e sh oo ti ng

. Ran so m he ar d s om eo ne sa y to ta ke Ran so m ou t of th e

va n “ an d m ak e hi m as co m fo rta bl e as po ss ib le .” Tha t pe rs on

, he la te r fo un d ou t, was

Serg ean t Dearin g, bu t Rans om te st ifi ed th at he ha d no pe rs on al in te ract io n with th e

se rg ean t. Ran so m as ke d if he co ul d go ho m e, bu t Dete ct iv e Ran dl e to ld hi m he was

“ go in g d own to wn” for

qu es ti on in g.

Ran so m te st ifi ed th at he th en was ta ke n to th e po li ce he ad qu art ers

. He was no t

ha nd cu ffed or pu t in th e ba ck se at of a pa tro l car, an d he was al lo wed to br in g hi s cel l

ph on e an d cal l hi s wife

. Ran so m was no t bo ok ed or fin ge rp rin te d, bu t he was pu t in to

a ro om th at he as su m ed was lo ck ed be cau se he he ard it la tc h; no on e to ld hi m it was

lo ck ed

. He si gn ed a sh eet de ta il in g th e Mi ran da warn in gs an d ag reed to ta lk wit ho ut

a l a w ye r p res en t. He te st ifi ed th at no on e y el le d or cu rs ed at hi m or ot he rwis e

th reat en ed hi m du rin g th e in te rv ie w. The in te rv ie w end ed when Dete ct iv e Ran dl e 3

to ld Ran so m he was “ free to go .” The p o l i c e o f f e r e d hi m a rid e ho m e, whi ch he

acce pt ed

.

Offi cers Ph il li ps an d Co na way te st ifi ed th at whe n th ey pu ll ed be hi nd th e va n,

th ey be ga n t o e xi t th ei r car when th ey he ard a lo ud ba ck fir e th at th ey th ou gh t was a

gu ns ho t. The of

fic ers be li ev ed th at th ey were bei ng “ am bu sh ed ”: The y th ou gh t th e

sc en e was “ a se tu p to dr aw of fic ers to th e sc en e to ki ll u s

. ” Wh e n R an so m di d no t

fo ll o w O f

f i c er Ph il li ps ’s co m

m an d to ge t ba ck in hi s car, Offi cer Ph il li ps be li ev ed

The di st ric t co ur t ad de d th at

, du rin g th e in te rv ie w, th e de te ct iv es ha d a sk et ch 3

m ad e of Ran so m ’s face ; qu es ti on ed hi m ab ou t hi s fam il y ; an d as ke d whe th er he “ was

a ‘m em be r of a ga ng [,]’ whe th er he ha d an y ‘gol d in hi s m ou th [,]’ an d whe th er he was

m is si ng an y te et h, et c.” The co ur t ci te s to a vi de o of th e i n te rv ie w at th e po li ce

he ad qu art ers

, bu t th a t v i d e o was no t m ad e a pa rt of th e reco rd on ap pe al

. Bec au se

ne it he r pa rty co nt es ts th es e fact s as reci te d by th e di st ri ct co ur t, we wil l acce pt th e

co ur t’s reci ta ti on on th is po in t. See Uni te d St at es v. Howar d, 53 2 F.3 d 75 5, 75 7 n.3

(8 th Cir . 20 08 ).

-5

-th at Ran so m was “ su ic id al by th e co p,” was “ no t tryin g to fle e,” an d was “ read y to

di e.” He fear ed fo r th e sa fet y of hi m se lf, Offi cer Co na way

, an d an y bysta nd ers

. The

of fic ers th ou gh t th ey he ard m or e sh ot s, so th ey fir ed at Ran so m

. Neit he r of fic er was

ab le to see Ran so m ’s han ds when he ex it ed hi s v an or we nt to th e fro nt of i t.

Dete ct iv e Ran dl e te st ifi ed th at

, as far as he kn ew, th e of fic ers ha d dr iv en to th e

va n fo ll owi ng th e rep or t o f sh ot s b ei ng fir ed ; s ho ts were fi red at th em fro m th e v an

whe n th ey arri ve d; an d th ey ret ur ne d fir e. Det e c t i v e R a nd le te st ifi ed th at he was

in st ru ct ed by Serg ean t Deari ng to ta ke Ran so m do wnt own fo r qu es ti on in g. Dete ct iv e

Ran dl e ad de d th at

, al th ou gh Ran so m was de ta in ed whi le he was qu es ti on ed

, he was

no t “ in cu st od y .”

Serg ean t Deari ng te st ifi ed th at whe n he arri ve d at th e sc en e, R a n s o m was in

ha nd cu ffs

. As ti m e wen t by, Serg ean t Deari ng sa id

, he “ st art ed to de te rm in e wha t ha d

ha pp en ed at th e cri m e sc en e

. . . an d it di dn ’t lo ok li ke we ha d pr ob ab le cau se to arre st

hi m ” be cau se “ th ere was no weap on .” Serg ean t Deari ng no te d th at th e in ve st ig at io n

ha d de te rm in ed Ra n s o m’s va n was ba ck fir in g an d th at th ere was no su sp ect in th e

fie ld ne arb y ; th us

, Serg ean t Deari ng co nc lu de d “ th at we di dn ’t ha ve pr ob ab le cau se ”

an d in st ru ct ed of

fic ers to ta ke Ran so m “ ou t of th e [p ol i c e ] w ag on an d ou t of

ha nd cu ffs .” Afte r th at po in t, Serg ean t Deari ng no lo ng er bel ie ve d th e of fic ers ev en

ha d a reas o n a b l e su sp ic io n to ho ld Ran so m

. Afte r th e de te ct iv es ha d in te rv ie wed

Ran so m at t he sce ne , ho wev er, Serge an t Dearin g in st ru ct ed th em to ge t a st at em en t

fro m Ran so m at th e po li ce he ad qu art ers

. Acco rd in g to Serg ean t Dear i n g

, it is

“s t a n da rd pr act ic e[,]

. . . if th ey are wil li ng to go ,” to ta ke wit ne ss es t o

of fic er-i nv ol ve d sh oo ti ng s do wnt own at th e ti m e of th e sh oo ti ng to gi ve a st at em en t.

Afte r di sc ov ery ha d co nc lu de d, th e de fen da nt s m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t,

arg ui ng th at th e of

fic ers ha d qu al ifi ed im m

un it y fro m su it ba se d on “ th ei r reas on ab le

m is ap pr eh en si on of th e f a c ts .” The y al so arg ue d th at th e de te ct iv es ha d pr ob ab le

cau se to de ta in Ran so m br ie fly fo r qu e s t i o n i n g an d to ta ke hi m to th e po li ce

-6

-he ad qu art ers

. The de fen da nt s al te rn at iv el y ar g u e d t h at Ran so m ha d co ns en te d to

gi vi ng a st at em en t.

The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n. The co ur t rev ie wed Ran so m ’s te st im on y

t h a t “a b u ll et or gl as s

. . . g raze d th e si de of m y he ad ” an d th at th e of

fic ers o r d e r e d

hi m to th e gr ou nd

, to sh ow hi s ha nd s, a n d t o walk to th e po li ce car an d th en

ha nd cu ffed hi m

. Bas ed on th at te st im on y

, th e co ur t co nc lu de d th at a qu es ti on of fact

ex is ts reg ard in g whe th er Ra n s o m w a s “ se iz ed ” by th e bu ll et s fir ed at hi m an d th e

of fic ers ’ act io ns

. The co ur t al so co nc lu de d th at “ th ere are di sp ut ed is su es of fact

w h i c h pr ecl ud e th e gr an ti ng of qu al ifi ed im m un it y ” fo r th e of

fic ers

. Nor was

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y ap pr op ria te fo r Dete ct iv es Ran dl e an d G r i s a f e or Serg ean t

Deari ng

, th e co ur t co nc lu de d, be c a u s e th ere are ge nu in e is su es of fact “ reg ard in g

whe th er pr ob ab le cau se ex is te d to de ta in pl ai nt iff an d whe th er pl ai nt iff ga ve co ns en t

to be tak en do wnt own an d q ue st io ne d.”

II . Dis cus si on

Alt ho ug h an ap pe al fro m th e de ni al of su m m ary jud gm en t is in te rlo cu to ry in

na tu re, we ha ve juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th at or de r bu t on ly to th e ex te nt th at th e de ni al

“ tu rn s on an is su e of la w.” R o b b i n s v

. Bec ke r, 71 5 F.3 d 69 1, 69 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 )

(q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Thu s, in th is in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al we m ay rev ie w on ly th e le ga l

is su es reg ard in g th e di st ric t co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n of qu al ifi ed im m un it y to th e fact s in

th is cas e. Jo ne s v. McNe es e, 67 5 F.3 d 11 58

, 11 61 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). Bu t we wil l no t,

a n d i n d e e d m ay no t, “ res ol ve an y di sp ut ed is su es of ev id en ti ary su ffi ci en cy .” I d

. (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. W it h r e s p e ct to th e le ga l is su e—t he de ni al of qu al ifi ed

im m un it y —o ur rev ie w is de no vo

. Glad de n v. Ri ch bo ur g, 75 9 F.3 d 96 0, 96 4 (8 th Ci r.

20 14 ).

-7

-a. Offi cers Phil li ps an d Con aw ay

On ap pe al , t he de fen da nt s fir st arg ue th at Offi cers Ph il li p s an d Co na way di d

no t se iz e Ran so m whe n t h e y f i r ed at hi m be cau se th ei r gu ns ho ts di d no t “ arre st hi s

m ov em en t.” He was no t s ei zed , th ey in si st , un ti l h e n ot ic ed th e o ffi cers an d p ut up

hi s h an ds . Even th en , th e d efen da nt s as se rt, th e se iz ur e was ob jecti ve ly reaso na bl e

ba se d on th ei r be li ef th at he was am bu sh in g th em

. Bec au se th ey act ed reas on ab ly, th e

de fen da nt s co nc lu de , th ey are en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y

.

Qu a l i f i ed im m un it y pr ot ect s go ve rn m en t of fic ia ls “ ‘from li ab il it y fo r ci vi l

da m ag es in so far as th ei r co nd uc t do es no t vi ol at e cl earl y es ta bl is he d s t a t u t o r y or

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s of whi ch a reas on ab le pe rs on wou ld ha ve kn own .’ ” Pear so n v.

Cal la ha n, 55 5 U.S. 22 3, 23 1 (2 00 9) (q uo ti ng Harl ow v. Fi tz ge ral d, 45 7 U.S. 80 0, 81 8

(1 98 2) ). Thi s i m

m un it y ap pl ie s to di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on s of go ve rn m en t act or s,

in cl ud in g t h e d e ci si on to us e de ad ly fo rce, se e Loc h v. Ci ty o f Lit ch fie ld , 6 89 F.3 d

96 1, 96 7 (8t h Cir. 20 12 ), an d t o d et ai n an in di vi du al

, se e Hart v. Unit ed St at es

, 63 0

F.3 d 10 85

, 10 90 (8 th C i r

. 2 01 1) (d is cu ss in g fed eral of fic ers ). To ov erco m e th e

de fen se of qu al ifi ed im m un it y

, Ran so m m

us t ha ve sh own th at th e of fic ers ’ act io ns

v io la te d a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht th at was “ cl earl y es ta bl is he d” at th e ti m e o f t h e i r

al le ge d m is co nd uc t. Pear so n, 55 5 U.S. at 23 2. In ot he r wor ds

, th e of fic ers m us t ha ve

be en “ pl ai nl y in co m

pe te nt ” or m

us t ha ve “ kn owi ng ly vi ol at e[d ] th e la w” whe n th ey

sh ot a t hi m an d se iz ed hi m at th e sc en e. See Glad de n, 75 9 F.3 d at 96 4 (q uo ti ng

Mal le y v. Bri gg s, 47 5 U.S. 33 5, 34 1 (1 98 6) ). W e ev al ua te th e de fen se of qu al ifi ed

im m un it y “ fro m th e pe rs pe ct iv e of a reas on ab le po li ce of fic er ba se d on fact s av ai la bl e

to th e of

fic er a t t h e t im e of th e al le ge d co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n.” Id .;

se e al so And e r s o n v

. C rei gh to n, 48 3 U.S. 63 5, 63 8 (1 98 7) (n ot in g th at of fic ers are

sh ie ld ed fro m li ab il it y “ as lo ng as th ei r act io ns co ul d reas on ab ly ha ve be en th ou gh t

co ns is te nt wit h t he rig ht s t he y are al le ge d t o h av e v io la te d” ).

-8

-The of fic ers al le ge dl y vi ol at ed Ran s o m’s rig ht to be free fro m un reas on ab le

se iz ur es

, gr an te d by th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t, whe n th ey (1 ) fir ed th ei r gu ns at hi m an d

(2 ) or de red hi m to la y on th e gr ou nd , s ho w t he of fic ers hi s ha nd s, an d wal k t owa rd

th em . W e wil l ad dr es s ea ch set of a ct io ns

.

i. Th e g un sh ot

s

As Rans om te st ifi ed an d st ip ul at ed

, an d as corr ob or at ed by th e vi de o, he was

no t h it by any

bu ll et . In t he vi de o, Ran so m do es no t ev en se em to no ti ce t he sh ot s;

in de ed

, he te st ifi ed th at he th ou gh t t h e s o un ds of th e gu ns ho ts were hi s va n

ba ck fir in g. The de fen da nt s arg ue th at Ran so m di d no t ceas e hi s m ov em en t as a res ul t

of th e gu ns ho ts

, an d so th os e sh ot s di d no t “ se iz e” hi m un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t.

Ran so m co un te rs th at al th ou gh he was no t di rect ly hi t, a bu ll et or a pi ece of gl as s m ay

ha ve gra zed hi s h ead an d t hu s “ se iz ed ” h im tem po rari ly.

Co ns tru in g th e fact s in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le t o R a n s om

, he arg ua bl y was

se iz ed by a gr azi ng sh ot or pi ece of gl as s. Non et he le ss

, we co nc lu de th at an y se iz ur e

th at di d oc cu r wa s ju s ti fie d. The us e of de ad ly fo rce is a se iz ur e un de r th e Fo ur th

Am en dm en t. Crai gh ead v. Lee, 39 9 F.3 d 95 4, 96 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). Bu t th at se iz ur e

m ay be reas on ab le if th e us e of fo rce was jus ti fi e d ; t h a t i s, if “ ‘the of fic er ha s

p r o b a b l e c a us e to be li ev e th at th e su sp ect po se s a th reat of se rio us ph y si cal ha rm,

ei th er t o t he off

ic er o r to ot he rs .’ ” Has sa n v . Cit y of Mi nn eap ol is , M in n., 48 9 F.3 d

91 4, 91 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (q uo ti ng Bro ss eau v. Hau ge n, 54 3 U.S. 19 4, 19 7– 98 (2 00 4) ).

It is un di sp ut ed th at th e of fic ers kn ew a 91 1 cal l ha d rep or te d sh ot s fir ed

, an d

th at cal l was co rro bo rat ed whe n th e of fic ers fo un d Ran so m ’s va n w h ere th e cal le r

sa id it wou ld be

. Afte r arri vi ng

, th e va n bac kf ire d— a so un d bo th si de s agre e co ul d

ha ve be en m is ta ke n for a gu ns ho t. Ran so m th en ex it ed hi s v an an d a pp eare d t o t he

of fic ers to di sr eg ard th ei r or de r to ge t ba ck in t h e c a r

. B a s e d on th es e fact s, th e

of fic ers were jus ti fie d in us i n g d ead ly fo rce to ne ut ral iz e wha t th ey reas on ab ly

-9

-be li ev ed was a ri sk of s eri ou s p hysic al ha rm , eit he r to th em se lv es or t o o th ers

. It is

ve ry for tu na te th at th e o ffi cers m is se d wi th th ei r sh ot s. Th is wou ld be a tra gi c cas e

i f R a ns om

, who by al l m ean s was ab id in g by th e la w, ha d be en in jure d or k i l l e d

.

Tho ug h Ran so m ha d do ne no th in g wro ng

, an d vi ewin g th e sc en e in hi s fav or

, th e

of fic ers ’ fear of h arm

was re as on ab le , and th e p ot en ti al sei zu re fro m th ei r gu ns ho ts

di d n ot vi ol at e Ran so m ’s Fou rth Am en dm en t ri gh ts

.

ii

. Th e co mman ds an d s ub se qu en t h an dc uf fi ng

W he n Ran so m fin al ly no ti ced th e of fic ers

, he pu t up hi s ha nd s an d fo ll owe d

t h ei r co m m an ds

. He y el le d to th e of fic ers th at he ha d no gu n an d th a t h i s v a n w a s

ba ck fir in g, bu t th e of

fic ers no ti ced th at th ei r win do w ha d be en sh ot ou t an d pe rcei ve d

th e ex pl an at io n as a sh am

. The y or de red Ran so m to ward th em an d, whe n he reac he d

th e p ol ic e car , ord ered hi m to th e g ro un d a nd ha nd cu ffed hi m

.

The de fen da nt s co nc ed ed at or al arg um en t th at th e of fic ers s e i z e d Ran so m

whe n th ey or de red hi m to pu t up hi s han ds an d walk to ward th em an d su bs eq ue nt ly

ha nd cu ffed hi m

. Thu s, we ne ed on ly as k whe th er th at se iz ur e was reas on ab le

. “ The

‘reaso na bl en es s’ of a pa rti cu la r us e of fo rce m us t be jud ge d fro m th e pe rs pe ct iv e of

a reas on ab le of

fic er on th e sc en e, rat he r th an wit h th e 20 /2 0 vi si on of hi nd s i g h t .”

Grah am v. Co nn or

, 49 0 U.S. 38 6, 39 6 (1 98 9) ; se e Aip pe rs ach v. McI ne rn ey

, 76 6 F.3 d

80 3

, 8 0 6 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 14 ). “ [T]he qu es ti on is whe th er th e of fic ers ’ act io ns are

‘objec ti ve ly reas on ab le ’ in li gh t of th e fact s an d ci rcu m st an ces co nf r on ti ng th em

,

wit ho ut reg ard to th ei r un de rlyin g i nt en t o r m ot iv at io n.” Grah am , 49 0 U.S. at 39 7.

Bas ed on th e un di sp ut ed fact s in th is cas e, we co nc lu de th at th e of fic ers act ed

reas on ab ly whe n th ey se iz ed Ran so m

. Onl y se co nd s aft er arri vi ng at th e sc en e whe re

sh ot s rep or te dl y ha d be en fir ed , t h e o f f i c ers he ard wha t bo th pa rti es ag ree so un de d

li ke a gu ns ho t. Alt ho ug h th e so un d actu al ly was th e ba ck fir in g of Ran so m ’s va n, it

is no t un reas on ab le th at th e o f f i c e r s a t th e sc en e wou ld no t no ti ce th e ta il pi pe

-1 0-sh oo ti ng sp ark s or real iz e th at th e so un d th ey he ard was fro m th e va n an d no t a gu n.

See Grah am

, 49 0 U.S. at 39 6 (p ro pe r te st of reas on ab le ne ss un de r Fo ur th Am en dm en t

“ req ui res care fu l at te nt io n to th e fa c ts an d ci rcu m st an ces of each pa rti cu la r cas e”).

Afte r fir in g at Ran so m

, th e of fic ers sa w th at th ei r win do w was sh ot ou t (ev en th ou gh

th at was fro m th ei r own ric oc he ti ng bu ll et s)

. Alt ho ug h Ran so m y el le d th at he ha d no

gu n an d th at th e so un ds were co m in g fro m hi s va n, a reas on a b le of fic er in th is

po si ti on co ul d no t kn ow wh e t h er Ran so m ’s un co rro bo rat ed ex pl an at io n was tru e.

See Loc h, 68 9 F.3 d at 96 6– 67 (o ffi cers act ed re a s o n a b l y in rai si ng gu ns at su sp ect

be cau se , eve n t ho ug h wi tn es se s yelle d h e was un arm ed , off ic ers were t ol d h e h ad a

gu n a nd di d n ot see hi m

to ss it away ).

W e be li ev e th e ab ov e fact s pr ov id ed th e o f f i c ers “ an ob

jecti ve ly reas on ab le

co nc ern fo r [th ei r] sa fet y or su sp ic io n of da ng er” th at al lo wed th em to ha nd cu ff an d

de ta in Ran so m whi le th ey su rv ey ed th e sc en e fo r fu tu re da ng er. W il li am s v. Deck er,

76 7 F.3 d 73 4, 74 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ); se e Uni te d St at es v. So ko lo w, 49 0 U.S. 1, 7 (1 98 9)

(aff irming th at “ th e p o l i c e can st op an d br ie fly de ta in a pe rs on fo r in ve st ig at iv e

pu rp os es if th e o ffi cer h as a reas on ab le su sp ic io n [o f on go in g c riminal act iv it y ]

. . .

ev en if th e of

fic er la ck s pr ob ab le cau se ”). Tho ug h Ran so m act ua ll y po se d no da ng er,

ou r rev ie w is o nl y fo r ob je ct iv e reas on ab le ne ss ba se d on th e ci rcu m st an ces at th e

ti m e. See Will ia m s, 7 67 F.3d at 7 41

.

Co ns id eri ng th e ci rcu m st an ces of th e sh oo ti ng

, we co nc lu de th at th e of fic ers ’

se iz ur e of Ran so m was reas on ab le a n d d id no t vi ol at e hi s rig ht s un de r th e Fo ur th

-1 1-Am en dm en t. Thu s, Offi cers Ph il li ps an d Co na way are en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed 4

im m un it y

.

b. Detec tiv es Rand le an d Gri sa fe

Dete ct iv es Ran dl e an d Gris afe arg ue th a t t h e y are en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed

im m un it y

, be cau se ev en as su m in g th at Ran so m was se iz ed an d req ui red to tra ve l to

po li ce he ad qu art ers f

o r an in te rv ie w, th e of

fic ers ha d “ arg ua bl e pr ob ab le cau se ” to

de ta in hi m fo r qu es ti on in g. The di st ric t co ur t, in de nyin g th ei r m ot io n fo r su m m ary

jud gm en t, co nc lu de d th at “ th ere are ge nu in e is sue s of fa ct re ga rd ing whe th er pr ob ab le

cau se ex is te d t o d et ai n p la in ti ff.”

The of fic ers are en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y if th ere was “ arg ua bl e pr ob ab le

cau se ” to de ta in Ran so m whe n th ey tra ns p or te d hi m to po li ce he ad qu art ers fo r

qu es ti on in g

. Tha t is , t he of fic ers are im m

un e fro m su it if th ey ha d “ a m is ta ke n bu t

ob je c t i ve ly reas on ab le be li ef” th at Ran so m ha d co m m it te d a cri m in al of

fen se

.

McC ab e v. Park er, 6 08 F.3d 10 68 , 10 78 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0) . “ W he n a n o ffi cer is face d

wit h co nf li ct in g in fo rm at io n th at can no t be im m ed ia te ly res ol ve d,

. . . h e m ay ha ve

arg ua bl e pr ob ab le cau se to arre st a su sp ect .” Bo rg m an v. Ked le y

, 64 6 F.3 d 51 8, 52 3

(8 th Cir . 20 11 ).

W he n Ran dl e an d Gris afe arri ve d on th e sc en e, th ey were br ie fed by Serg ean t

Deari ng

. Deari ng to ld th em th at ot he r of fic ers (i.e

., Co na way an d Ph il li ps ) ha d be en

di sp at ch ed in res p o n s e t o a rep or t of sh ot s fir ed fro m a whi te va n, th at sh ot s were

Bec au se we co nc lu de th at th e of fic ers di d no t vi ol at e Ran so m ’s co ns ti tu ti on al 4

rig ht s, we ne ed no t ad dr e s s w h e t he r th e rig ht al le ge dl y vi ol at ed was “ cl earl y

es ta bl is he d” at th e ti m e of th e ev en ts

. See Pear so n, 55 5 U.S. at 23 6 (g ran ti ng co ur ts

di sc ret io n to de ci de whi ch el em en t of qu al ifi ed im m un it y to ad dr es s fir st ); Fiel ds v.

Abb ot t, 65 2 F.3 d 88 6, 89 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (p as si ng o n q ue st io n whe th er rig ht was

cl earl y est ab li sh ed aft er co nc lu di ng th at no co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht was v io la te d ).

-1 2-fir ed fro m th e va n whe n th e of fic ers arri ve d, an d th at th e of fic ers ret ur ne d fir e. The

of fic ers

, he sa id

, “ fel t li ke th ey were b e i n g s h o t u po n so m ewh ere in th e fie ld .”

Gr i s a f e i nt erv ie wed Offi cer Co na way

, who was an ey ewit ne ss to th e in ci de nt

.

Co na way to ld Gris af

e t h a t w h e n sh e an d Ph il li ps arri ve d at th e sc en e, th ey he ard a

gu ns ho t, an d “ Offi cer Co na way be li ev ed th at Mr. Ran so m was sh oo ti ng at h e r

pa rtn er, Offi cer Ph il li ps .” Ran dl e can va ss ed th e area ; th e po li c e c r u i s e r dr iv en by

Co na way an d P hi ll ip s h ad be en da m ag ed by gun fir e.

The in fo rm at io n c on ve y ed to Gris afe b y ey ewit ne ss Co na way —t ha t Ra ns om

was sh oo ti ng at Offi cer Ph il li ps —an d th e co rro bo r a t i n g e v i de nc e of da m ag e to th e

po li ce cru is er was en ou gh to es ta bl is h at le as t arg ua bl e pr ob ab le cau se fo r Gris afe an d

Ran dl e to de ta in Ran so m fo r qu es ti on in g. “ The of fic ers ha d no du ty to c on du ct

fu rth er in ve st ig at io n on ce th ey ha d (arg ua bl e) pr ob ab le cau se to arre st .” Cl ay bo rn v.

St ru eb in g, 7 34 F.3d 80 7, 8 09 (8t h C ir. 2 01 3)

.

In de nyin g qu al ifi ed im

m un it y

, th e di st ric t co ur t rel ie d he av il y on th e fact th at

Serg ean t Deari ng be li ev ed th ere was no pr ob ab le cau se to arre st Ran so m by th e ti m e

Ran dl e an d Gris afe to ok Ran so m to he ad qu art ers

. The reco r d is no t cl ear whe th er

Deari ng co m

m un ic at ed hi s be li ef to Ran dl e an d Gris afe. Deari ng te st ifi ed th at he to ld

“ th em ” to ta ke Ran so m ou t of th e po li ce wag on an d ou t of ha nd cu ffs ; he sa id he di d

no t r e mem

be r who m he to ld

, bu t th at it “ was pr ob ab ly on e of m y de te ct iv es .”

Deari ng sa id th at he di rect ed th at Ran so m be rel eas ed be cau se a s th e in ve st ig at io n

pr og res se d, “ it di dn ’t lo ok li ke we ha d pr ob ab le cau se to arre st hi m .” At so m e po in t,

Deari ng sa id th at on e o f th e d et ect iv es —“ it m ay ha ve be en Ran dl e”— to ld hi m th at

Ran so m was co op erat iv e, an d Deari ng to ld Ran dl e, “ well

, le t’s ge t a st at em en t fro m

hi m .” Ran dl e an d Gris afe th erea fte r br ou gh t Ran so m to he ad qu art ers fo r an

in te rv ie w.

In de te rm in in g whe th er Ran dl e an d Gris afe ha d arg u a b l e p r o ba bl e cau se to

de ta in Ran so m

, th e st an da rd i s o b jecti ve

. Deari ng ’s su bj ect iv e be li ef ab ou t th e

-1 3-ex is te nc e of pr ob ab le cau se

, ev en as su m in g it was co nv ey ed to Ran dl e an d Gris afe,

is no t re le va nt to th e an al y si s. Bri dg ewat er v . Cap le s, 2 3 F.3d 14 47

, 14 49 (8 th Cir

.

19 94 ). Ch an ge s in ob

je ct iv e ev id en ce m ay be rel ev an t: “ an in ve st ig at iv e st op m us t

ceas e on ce reas on ab le su sp ic io n or pr ob ab le cau se di ss ip at es .” Uni te d St at es v.

W at ts

, 7 F.3 d 12 2, 12 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ). Bu t w h e t he r pr ob ab le cau se di ss ip at ed

req ui res ex am in at io n of th e ob jecti ve fact s kn own to th e de ta in in g of fic ers

. The re is

no ev id en ce th at Deari ng co m m un ic at ed to Ran dl e an d Gris afe wha te ve r fact ua l

in fo rm at io n le d Deari ng to co nc lu de th at Ran so m sh ou ld be rel eas ed fro m th e po li ce

wag on an d ha nd cu ffs

. The reco rd th us do es no t su pp or t a fin di ng th at whe n Ran dl e

an d Gris afe br ou gh t Ran so m to po li ce he ad qu art ers

, th e of fic ers were aware of fact s

ab ou t th e in ci de nt th at e li m in at ed arg ua bl e pr ob ab le cau se to de ta in Ran so m ba se d

on Offi ce r Co na way ’s ey ewit ne ss rep or t th at Ran so m was sh oo ti ng at Offi cer

Ph il li ps

.

Fo r th es e rea so ns , we con cl ud e th at Ran dl e an d Gris afe ha d at lea st arg ua bl e

pr ob ab le cau se to de ta in Ran so m whe n th ey dr ov e hi m to po li ce he ad qu art ers fo r an

in te rv ie w. The o ffi cers are en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y

.

c. Serg ea nt Dea ri ng

Last

, th e de fen da nt s arg ue th at Serg ean t Deari ng di d no t se iz e Ran so m be cau se

he “ or de red Mr. Ran so m to be ta ke n ou t of

, n o t i n t o

, cu st od y .” Add it io na ll y

, th e

de fen da nt s as se rt, Serg ean t Deari ng ha d no co nt act wit h Ran so m an d no kn owl ed ge

whe th er Ran so m ag reed to go do wnt own fo r qu es ti on in g or

, in st ead

, ha d as ke d to go

ho m e. Thu s, th e de fe n d a n t s co nc lu de

, Serg ean t Deari ng sh ou ld be en ti tl ed to

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y ag ai ns t t he wron gf

ul -d et en ti on cla im

.

On th is po in t, an d ba se d on th e ev id en ce in th e reco rd

, we ag ree wit h th e

de fen da nt s. Tho ug h Serg ean t Deari ng di d te ll th e de te ct iv es to ge t a st at em en t fro m

R a n s om

, he was to ld th at Ran so m was “ ve ry co op erat iv e.” Serg ean t D e a r i n g

-1 4-fo ll owe d th e st an da rd pr act ic e o f g e tt in g a st at em en t fro m wit ne ss es of

of fic er-i nv ol ve d sh oo ti ng s, “ if th ey are wil li ng to go .” Serg ean t Deari ng was ne ve r

in fo rm ed th at Ran so m ha d to ld th e d e t e c ti ve s he wan te d to go ho m e an d di d no t

co ns en t to th e in te rv ie w at po li ce he ad qu art ers

. Eve n as su m in g fo r th e sa ke of

an al y si s th at th e de te ct iv es de ta in ed Ran so m ag ai ns t hi s wil l wit ho ut pr ob ab le cau se

, Serg ean t Deari ng is no t li ab le fo r th e un au th or iz ed

, unc on st it ut io na l act io ns of ot he rs

.

See Ash cro ft v. Iq ba l, 55 6 U.S. 66 2, 67 6 (2 00 9) ; Parr is h v. Bal l, 59 4 F.3 d 99 3, 10 01

-

02 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). Nor can we co nc lu de th at Serg ean t Deari ng in te nt io na ll y vi ol at ed

R an so m ’s Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht to be free of un reas on ab le se iz ur es ; he i s t h u s

en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m

un it y

. See McC oy v. Ci ty of Mo nt ic el lo

, 34 2 F.3 d 84 2, 84 7

(8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (“ To be a vi ol at io n of th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t, th e res tra in t in li be rty

m us t be effe ct ua te d ‘ th ro ug h me a ns in te nt io na ll y ap pl ie d .’ ”) (q uo ti ng Bro wer v.

Co un ty of In y o, 4 89 U.S. 59 3, 5 97 (19 89 )).

II I. Co ncl us io n

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng r e as on s, we rev ers e th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r de nyin g

qu al ifi e d i m

m un it y to th e po li ce of

fic ers

, an d we rem an d wit h di rect io ns to en te r

jud gm en t fo r th e d efen da nt s an d d is m is s t he co m pl ai nt

.

RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge , con cu rri ng

.

I fu ll y joi n th e m ajor it y op in io n bu t writ e se pa rat el y to rei te rat e th e co ur t’s

di rect io n in Ro bb i n s v

. Bec ke r, 71 5 F.3 d 69 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ), an d ot he r cas es

, th at

dis tr ic t co ur

ts m ust ca re fu lly co ndu ct “ a th or ou gh qu al ifi ed im m un it y an al y si s” be fo re

de nyin g or gr an ti ng su m

m ary jud gm en t on th is is su e, in cl ud in g “ fin di ng s of fact an d

co nc lu si on s of la w, si m il ar by an al og y to [Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e] 52 (a)( 2) ,”

su ffi ci en t fo r ou r co ur t effe ct iv el y to “ fu lfi ll ou r fu nc ti on of rev ie w.” Id

. at 69 4 & n.2

(q uo ta ti on s om it te d)

. To be th or ou gh

, th e de te rm in at io n m ay no t be “ ‘abb rev ia te d’”

or “ ‘ters e’” an d m

us t la y ou t th e fact fin di ng s a nd la w “ ‘step -b y -s te p.’” Jo ne s v.

-1 5-McNe es e, 67 5 F.3 d 11 58

, 11 63 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (q uo ti ng O’ Neil v. Ci ty of Io wa Ci ty,

Io wa, 49 6 F .3d 91 5, 9 18 (8t h C ir. 2 00 7) ).

KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g i n p art an d d is se nt in g i n p art

.

The co ur t co nc ludes th at Dete ct iv es Ran dl e an d Gris afe are en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed

im m un it y

. It reac he s th at de ci si on aft er r e l at in g th e fact s as pr es en te d by on ly th e

de te ct iv es an d Serg ean t Dea rin g. Bu t o ur rev ie w of t hi s s um m ary jud gm en t case is

ve ry li m it ed in sc op e. W e m ay rev ie w o nl y th e le ga l i ss ue pre se nt ed —wh et he r th e

Dete ct iv es are en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed i mm u n i ty—an d th at le ga l is su e m us t be

“ co ns id ered on fac t s fav or ab le to [th e pl ai nt iff ]. ” McNe es e, 67 5 F.3 d at 11 61 ;

se e Bri dg ewat er, 23 F.3 d at 14 4 9 ( n o ti ng th at

, on ap pe al fro m su m m ary jud gm en t,

th is co ur t m

us t vi ew th e ev id en ce “ in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e pl ai nt iff ”).

Und er th at rev ie w, vi ewin g th e fact s in Ran so m ’s fav or

, I wou ld co nc l ud e th at

Dete ct iv es Ran dl e an d Gri sa fe vio la te d Ran so m ’s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s an d t hu s ar e

no t en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y

.

As th e co ur t ack n o w l e d g e s, Serg ean t Deari ng te st ifi ed th at he ha d to ld

“ pr ob ab ly on e of [th e] de te ct iv es ” to ta ke of f Ran so m ’s ha nd cu ffs be cau se “ it di dn ’t

lo ok li ke we ha d pr ob ab l e c a u s e t o arre st hi m .” In fact

, Serg ean t Deari ng te st ifi ed

th at whe n he or de r e d R an so m rel eas ed fro m th e wag on an d th e ha nd cu ffs

, he no

lo ng er be li ev ed th e of

fic ers ha d ev en a r e as on ab le su sp ic io n of wro ng do in g. Yet,

de sp it e th e in st r u c ti on to rel eas e Ran so m

, Serg ean t Deari ng al so to ld Dete ct iv e

Ran dl e to ge t a s ta te m en t fr om Ran so m . Th ou gh th ere is no ev id en ce i n t he reco rd

th at ei th er de te ct iv e was ex pr es sl y in fo rm ed th at th ere was no pr ob ab le cau se to arre st

Ran so m , nei th er were th ey to ld th at th ere re m ai ne d a ny j us ti fic at io n t o h ol d h im

.

Add it io na ll y

, Ran so m te st ifi ed th at he ask ed Dete ct iv e Ran dl e if he co ul d go

ho m e. Dete ct iv e Ran dl e de ni ed Ran so m ’s r e qu es t an d res po nd ed th at Ran so m

in st ead ha d to go do wnt own fo r qu es ti on in g. Ran so m was no t bo ok ed or arre st ed

, bu t

-1 6-he was pl aced in wha t he be li ev ed to be a lo ck ed in te rv ie w ro om fo r ov er 34 m in ut es

whi le th e de te ct iv es qu es ti on ed hi m

. The de te ct iv es as ke d Ran so m ab ou t hi s fam il y

,

whe th er he ha d “ go ld in hi s m ou th ,” whe th er he was m is si ng an y te et h, whe th er he

was in a ga ng

, an d so on

. He a l s o w a s l i s te d as a “ Su sp ect ” in an “ Agg rav at ed

Ass au lt ,” no t as a wit ne ss to an of fic er-i nv ol ve d sh oo ti ng

. Afte r th e qu es ti on in g, th ey

to ld hi m he was “ free to go .”

Tho ug h th e de ta in m en t was in ve st ig at iv e in na tu re, an d no t cu st od ia l, Ran so m

ha d a rig ht no t to be su bjec t to de ta in m en t ag ai ns t hi s wil l. See Hay es v. Fl or id a, 47 0

U.S. 81 1, 81 6 (1 98 5) (co nc lu di ng th at po li ce m ay no t, “ wit ho ut pr ob ab le cau se or a

warra nt

, fo rci bl y rem ov e a pe rs on fro m hi s ho m e or ot he r pl ace in whi ch he is en ti tl ed

to be an d tran sp or t h im

to th e p ol ic e st at io n, wh ere h e is de ta in ed

, al th ou gh br ie fly,

fo r in ve st ig at iv e p ur

po se s” ). Viewi ng th e ev id en ce in Ran so m ’s fav or , I co nc lu de

5

th at th e Dete ct iv es di d det ai n Ran so m ag ai ns t hi s will wit ho ut pr ob ab le cau se to do

so in vi ol at io n of hi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht as de sc rib ed in Hay es

. As a res ul t, I be li ev e

th e di st ric t co ur t pr op er l y d e n i ed Dete ct iv es Ran dl e an d Gris afe’s m ot io n fo r

su m m ary jud gm en t ba se d on qu al ifi ed im m un it y

, an d I res pe ct fu ll y di ss en t fro m th e

co ur t’s co nc lu si on to th e co nt rary in Pa rt I I(b ).

Und er th e sa m e st an da rd of rev ie w, ho wev er, I ag ree th at Offi cers Ph il li ps an d

Co na way an d Serg ean t Deari ng are en ti tl ed to qu al i fie d im m un it y

. I al so

ack no wled ge th is od d res ul t: The of fic ers who op en -fi red on an un a r m ed m an are

gi ve n im m

un it y ; y et th e de te ct iv es who tra ns po rte d th e sa m e un arm ed m an

, wit ho ut

res tra in t, to a po li ce st at io n to as k hi m q u e s t i o n s a n d th en to ok hi m ho m e wou ld

re c e i ve no im m

un it y

. Bu t th e pe cu li ari ty of th e fact s in th is cas e le ad s to th os e

co nc lu si on s. All in vo lv ed pa rti es ag reed th at th e va n’ s b a c k f i res so un de d li ke

gu ns ho ts

. The 91 1 cal le r cert ai nl y th ou gh t so

, to o. It was reas on ab le fo r th e of fic ers

The pa rti es do no t di sp ut e th at th is rig ht is “ cl earl y es ta bl is he d” fo r pu rp os es 5

of qu al ifi ed im m

un it y

.

-1 7-to reac t as off ic ers wou ld be ex pe ct ed to reac t in th e h ig hl y un us ua l an d p ot en ti al ly

da ng ero us si tu at io n pr es en te d in th is cas e. How lu ck y t h a t th e of fic ers di d no t hi t

Ran so m

, or a nyon e el se

, whe n th ey fir ed th ei r gu ns

. Bu t ev en vi ewin g th e fact s in

Ran so m ’s fav or

, an d de sp it e th e fri gh te ni ng ci rcu m st an ces

, th e of fic ers are im m

un e

un de r th e la w fr o m t h i s s u i t. Thu s, I co nc ur in th e co ur t’s co nc lu si on in Part II(a ).

I co nc ur in Part II(c) , as wel l.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 8-