# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 8- 10 45

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Je ric a Mo or e-J on es , Ind iv id ua ll y an d a s Pa ren t an d Nex t Fr ie nd of De la Mo or e

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

ff - App el le e

v.

Ant ho ny Todd Qui ck , Troo pe r, in di vi du al ly and in hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty

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

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 26 , 20 18 Fi le d: Nov em

be r 28 , 20 18

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, BENTO N, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Je ric a Je na Mo or e-J o n e s s u ed Ark an sa s St at e Po li ce tro op er Ant ho ny Tod d Qui ck un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 9 8 3 a n d s t at e la w, fo r ex ces si ve fo rce an d as sa ul t an d ba tt ery. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed q u al ifi ed an d st at ut or y im m un it y

. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1, t hi s co ur t re ve rs es an d re m an ds

.On t he ev en in g of Nov em be r 7, 20 15 , M oo re-J on es was dr iv in g o n a ser vi ce

ro ad ne xt to th e in te rs ta te

. Sh e pa ss ed Qui ck ’s m ark ed po li ce car pa rk ed on th e rig ht sh ou ld er. He ch eck ed th e car’s reg is tra ti on , fo un d it was ex pi red
, an d be ga n a tra ffi c
st op aro un d 8 :2 2: 28 p.m ., whi ch was re co rd ed on hi s d as h- cam

.

Qui ck p u l le d rig ht be hi nd Mo or e-J on es , tu rn ed on hi s em erg en cy li gh ts at 8: 23 :2 7 p.m ., s ire ns at 8: 23 :3 5 p.m ., a nd sp ot li gh t at 8: 23 :3 8 p.m

. S h e d e c e l erat ed

to ab ou t 14 m il es pe r ho ur an d pu ll ed on to th e r i g h t s ho ul de r, pa st a car th at ha d

y ie ld ed

. The sh ou ld er was na rro w, th e area un li t an d da rk

. Sh e th en pu ll ed ba ck on th e ro ad
, a c cel erat in g to 35 -3 8 m il es pe r ho ur , he r sp eed fo r th e res t of th e pu rs ui t. The po st ed sp eed li m it was 55 m il es pe r ho ur

. At 8: 24 :1 6 p.m ., s he co nt in ue d pa st th e la st e x i t b e f

or e th e ne ares t ci ty a m il e-an d- a-h al f away. At 8: 24 :1 8 p.m ., i n th e
pa ve d area aft er th e ex it , Qu ic k be ga n a Prec is io n Im m ob il iz at io n Tech ni qu e (PIT)

m an eu ve r. Qui ck st ru ck he r rig ht -rea r fen de r wit h hi s le ft- fro nt bu m pe r, cau si ng he r

car to sp in in to a di tc h, hi tt in g a cem en t cu lv ert

. Mo or e- J o n e s an d he r da ug ht er vi si te d th e ho sp it al th at ni gh t an d were tre at ed an d rel eas ed

. Sh e w a s c it ed fo r

ex pi red tag s an d fa il ur e to y ie ld to an em erg en cy ve hi cl e, bo th m is de m ean or s.

Mo or e-J on es an d he r m in or da ug ht er su ed Q u i ck fo r ex ces si ve fo rce an d

as sa ul t an d ba tt ery. Qui ck so ug ht su m m ary jud gm en t, in vo ki n g qu al ifi ed an d

st at ut or y im m un it y . The d is tri ct co ur t d en ie d h is m ot io n. Qu ic k a pp eal s.

Thi s co ur t rev ie ws de no vo a de n i a l o f s um m ary jud gm en t on th e ba si s of

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y, vi ewin g th e reco rd m os t fav or ab ly to th e no n- m ov in g pa rty. Tat um v. Ro bi ns on , 85 8 F.3 d 54 4, 54 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ). Qui ck is en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y un le ss his “ cond uc t vi ol at ed a cl earl y es ta bl is he d co ns ti tu ti on al or st at ut or y

r i g h t of whi ch a reas on ab le of fic er wou ld ha ve kn own .” Cr av ener v. Shus te r , 8 8 5
F

. 3d 11 35
, 11 38 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ). To ov erco m e qu al ifi ed im m un it y , Mo or e-J on es

m us t pr ov e: “ (1 ) th e fact s, vi ewed in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to [h er], de m on st rat e th e de pr iv at io n of a co ns ti tu ti on al or s t a t u t or y rig ht ; an d (2 ) th e rig ht was cl earl y

-2

-es ta bl is he d at th e ti m e of th e de pr iv at io n.” Wi ls on v. Lam p , 90 1 F.3 d 98 1, 98 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ). Eit he r pr on g m ay be ad dr es se d fir st

. Pea rs on v. Ca ll ah an , 55 5 U.S. 22 3,
23 6 (2 00 9)

.

Mo or e-J on es c l a i ms th at Qui ck ’s PIT m an eu ve r vi ol at ed he r Fo ur th
Am en dm en t rig ht to be free fro m ex ces si ve fo rce. Se e Wi ls on , 90 1 F.3 d at 98 9. Fo r

a rig ht to be cl earl y es ta bl is he d, it s co nt ou rs m us t be “ su ffi ci en tl y de fin it e th at an y

reas on ab le of

fi c i a l in th e de fen da nt ’s sh oe s wou ld ha ve un de rs to od th at he was vi ol at in g it .” Ki

se la v. Hug hes
, 13 8 S. Ct

. 11 48
, 11 53 (2 01 8) (p er cu ria m ), qu ot in g Plum ho ff v. Ri ck ar d
, 57 2 U.S. 76 5, 77 8– 79 (2 01 4)

. Fai li ng to “ id en ti fy a cas e whe re

an of fic er act in g un de r si m il ar ci rcu m st an ces

. . . was he ld to ha ve vi ol at ed th e Fo ur th
Am en dm en t” is of

te n fat al to a cl ai m ou ts id e of ob vi ou s cas es

. Whi te v. Paul y , 13 7 S. Ct

. 54 8, 55 2 (2 01 7) (p er cu ria m ). Se e id

. , ci ti ng Unit

ed St at es v. Lani er , 52 0 U.S. 25 9, 27 1 (1 99 7) (ex pl ai ni ng a “ ge ne ral co ns ti tu ti on al ru le ” c a n g i v e fai r warn in g whe re i t ap pl ie s “ wit h ob vi ou s cl ari ty t o t he sp eci fic co nd uc t i n q ue st io n” ). A case

ne ed no t be “ di rect ly on po in t, bu t ex is ti ng pr eced en t m us t ha ve pl aced th e st at ut or y

or co ns t it ut io na l qu es ti on be y on d de ba te .” Mul le ni x v. Luna , 13 6 S. Ct

. 30 5, 30 8 (2 01 5) (pe r cu rim), qu ot in g As hcr of t v. a l-K id d , 56 3 U.S. 7 31 , 74 2 (2 01 1)

.

The rig ht to be free fro m a P I T maneu ve r in th es e ci rcu m st an ces was no t

su ffi ci en tl y de fin it e. The di st ric t co ur t rel ie d on th e cl earl y es t a bl is he d la w th at

“ fo rce is le as t jus ti fie d ag ai ns t no nv io le nt m is de m ean an ts who do no t fle e or act iv el y

res is t arre st an d po se li tt le or no th reat to th e se cu rit y of t he of fic ers or th e pu bl ic .”
Br ow n v. Ci ty of Gol

de n V al le y , 57 4 F.3 d 49 1, 49 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). Se e Wi ls on , 90 1
F.3 d at 99 0– 91 (co ll ect in g cas es ). Thi s ge ne ral ru le , h owe ve r, do es no t ap pl y wit h ob vi ou s cl ari ty to th e sp eci fic co nd uc t he re, whe re Mo or e-J on es refu se d co m m an ds

to st op

. Se e, e.g

. , Ehl

er s v. Ci ty of Ra

pi d Ci ty , 84 6 F.3 d 10 02
, 10 12 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (fi nd in g th e Bro wn li ne s o f cas es “ in ap po si te ” whe re a su sp ect ig no red two

co m m an ds ) (an al y zi ng la w as of 20 10 ). Fro m a reas on ab le of fic er’s pe rs pe ct iv e, sh e refu se d to co m

pl y wit h co m

m an ds to pu ll ov er. In Nov em be r 20 15
, Qui ck was

-3

-jus ti fie d in us in g so m e fo rce to se cu re co m pl ia nc e. Se e Nea l v. Fi cca de nt i
, 89 5 F.3 d
5 7 6, 58 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ) (“ Law en fo rcem en t of fic ers are no t req ui red to read a

s us pe ct ’s m ot iv at io ns in fai li ng to ob ey co m m an ds —i t is en ou gh th at th e o f f i c e r

reas on ab ly p erce iv es th at th e su sp ect is no t fo ll owi ng ord ers as gi ve n.” ) (an al y zi ng la w as of 20 12 ); Wer ti

sh v. Kr ueg er , 43 3 F.3 d 1 0 6 2
, 10 66 –6 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (p as si ve res is ta nc e can reas on ab ly r e q u i r e “ so m ewh at m or e fo rce” to co m pl et e an

arre st ).

Qui ck de ci de d to us e a PIT m an eu ve r fro m th e rig ht si de of Mo or e-J on es ’s car,

av oi di ng th e d an ge rs to he r an d ot he r dr iv ers fro m he r car p ot en ti al ly spi nn in g i nt o th e pa ral le l in te rs ta te

. He wait ed un ti l aft er th e la st ex it be fo re th e ne ares t ci ty, whi ch ha d s pa ce o n t he rig ht sh ou ld er fo r th e m an eu ve r.

The is su e is whe th er ex is ti ng pr eced en t pu t th e reas on ab le ne ss of hi s de ci si on

“ be y on d de ba te .” Se e Mul le ni x , 13 6 S. Ct

. at 30 8, qu ot in g al -Ki dd
, 56 3 U.S. at 74 1.
Mo or e-J on es id en ti fie s on e cas e, Mar sh al l v. W es t , 55 9 F. Su pp

. 2d 12 24 (M.D. Ala.
20 08 ). The re, a PIT man eu ve r co ns ti tu te d ex ces si ve fo rce ag ai ns t a no n- vi ol en t

m is de m ean an t who fai le d to pu ll ov er du rin g a da y li gh t pu rs ui t, bu t di d no t po se an im m ed ia te ris k to t h e o ffi cers or bysta nd ers

. Ma rs ha ll
, 55 9 F. Su pp

. 2d at 12 40

. Howev er, Mar

sh al l tu rn ed on th e fact th at th e de fen da nt s— pl ai n- cl ot he d of

fic ers dr iv in g an un m ark ed car wit h a m al fu nc ti on in g em erg en cy li gh t— “ fai le d to ad eq ua te ly id e n t i f

y th em se lv es to Pl ai nt iff as la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers .” Id

. Se e At ki ns on v. Ci ty of Mt

n. V ie w , 70 9 F.3 d 12 0 1
, 12 13 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (an of fic er’s fai lu re to id en ti fy hi m se lf is ev id en ce th at a su sp ect is no t “ac t i v e l y re si st in g arre st [o r] at te m pt in g to ev ad e arre st by fli gh t” ), qu ot in g Gra ha m v. Co nno r , 49 0 U.S. 38 6,
39 6 (1 98 9)

. The Mar

sh al l cas e im

pl ie s th at aft er ad eq ua te ly id en ti fy in g hi m se lf, an of f ic er m ig ht be jus ti fie d in us in g a PIT m an eu ve r on a no n- co m pl ia nt m ot or is t. Here, it is un di sp ut ed th at Qui ck
, in a m ark ed po li ce car, ha d en ga ge d hi s em erg en cy li gh ts , si ren s, an d s po tl ig ht

.

-4

-O t h e r c as es sh ow th at PIT m an eu ve rs can reas on ab ly be us ed

. Se e Sha rp v .

Fi sh er , 53 2 F.3 d 11 80
, 11 84 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ) (p er cu ria m ) (fi n d i n g PIT m an eu ve r

rea sonab le whe n us ed ag ai ns t a su sp ect fle ei ng at hi gh sp eed s an d dr iv in g erra ti cal ly);
Ab ney v. Co e , 49 3 F.3d 41 2, 41 8 (4 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (fi nd in g PIT m an eu ve r reas on ab le

w h e n us ed ag ai ns t m ot or cy cl is t en da ng eri ng th e pu bl ic by reck le ss ly fle ei ng do w n

na rro w, win di ng ro ad s)

. Cf

. Sco tt v. Ha rr is
, 55 0 U.S. 37 2, 38 6 (2 00 7) (PIT m an eu ve r

au th or iz ed , i ns te ad of

fic er st ru ck su sp ect ’s c ar fro m di rect ly b eh in d) ; Pas co ex re l.
Pas co v . K n o bl au ch
, 56 6 F.3 d 57 2, 58 1 (5 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (in te nt io na ll y bu m pi ng reck le ss ly-flee in g, in to xi cat ed dr iv er of f th e ro ad was reas on a b l e , e v e n th ou gh no
ot he r ve hi cl es or pe de st ria ns were en co un te red du rin g th e pu rs ui t); Hel se th v. Bur ch
, 25 8 F.3 d 86 7, 87 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (en ba nc ) (fi nd in g un su cces sf ul PIT m an eu ve rs

us ed ag ai ns t fle ei ng su sp ect du rin g hi gh

- s p e e d c ha se di d no t ha ve a co ns ci en cesh oc ki ng in te nt to ha rm th e dr iv er an d pa ss en ge rs ne ces sa ry fo r a Due Pro ces s Cl au se vi ol at io n)

.

The ci rcu m st an ces he re are so m ewh er e b et ween th e Mar sh al l cas e an d th e
ot he r cas es ab ov e. Tak en to ge th er, th e y s u g g e st Qui ck ’s a ct io ns were in th e “ ha zy bo rd er be twee n ex ces si ve an d acce pt ab le fo rce.” Mul le ni x , 13 6 S. Ct

. at 31 2, qu ot in g Br os se au v. Ha ug en , 54 3 U.S. 19 4, 20 1 (2 00 4) (p er cu ria m ). The di st ric t co ur t erre d in co nc lu di n g Mo or e-J on es ’s rig ht was cl earl y es ta bl is he d. Qui ck is en ti tl ed to
qu al ifi ed im m

un it y

.

Thi s al so res ol ve s Mo or e-J on es ’s st at e-l aw, e x c e ss iv e-fo rce cl ai m s. Se e Ba ld ri dg e v. Co rd

es , 85 S.W .3d 51 1, 51 4– 15 (Ark

. 20 02 ) (n ot in g Ark an sa s of fic ers

an d em pl oyees ha ve im m

un it y si m il ar to fed eral q u a l ifi ed im m un it y fo r

no n- m al ic io us act s o r omiss io ns wit hi n t he sco pe of t he ir e m pl oym en t).

Thi s di sm is sa l of t h e ex ces si ve -fo rce cl ai m s do es no t res ol ve th e cl ai m s of

co m m on la w as sa ul t an d ba tt ery. Se e Ar ka ns as St at e Med

. Bd

. v. Bye rs , 52 1 S.W .3d
45 9, 46 3– 65 (Ark

. 20 17 ) (u nd er im m un it y st at u te fo r st at e em pl oyees, an al y zi ng

-5

-m al ic e al le ga ti on s an d st at e ci vi l-r ig ht s cl ai m s se pa rat e fro m fed eral ci vi l-r ig ht s

cl ai m s) ; Ea rl

y v. C r oc ke tt , 43 6 S.W .3d 14 1, 15 0 (Ark

. 20 14 ) (“ [A]n of fic er or

em pl oyee who act s m al ic io us ly

. . . is no t pro te ct ed by [s ta tu to ry im m un it y fo r st at e

e mp l o yees .] ”); Si

m on s v. Ma rs ha ll
, 25 5 S.W .3d 83 8, 84 2 (Ark

. 20 07 ) (“ [S]ui ts
ag ai ns t [s ta te ] of

fic ers an d em

pl oyees al le ge d to be m al ic io us ” le av e th em “ li ab le to th e ex te n t a n yo n e w ou ld be li ab le un de r to rt la w.”); Gri ne v. Bd

. of Trus te es , 2 S.W .3d 54
, 59 (Ark

. 19 99 ) (“ In te nt io na l to rts ov e r co m e th e im m un it y ex te nd ed to St at e of fic ers an d em

pl oyees.” ). Cf

. Ma rt in v. Ha ll um , 37 4 S.W .3d 15 2, 16 0 (Ark.
Ct

. App

. 20 10 ) (g ran ti ng im m un it y fo r ex ces si ve fo rce cl ai m bu t de nyin g it fo r ba tt ery

un de r im m

un it y st at ut e fo r ci ty em

pl oyees, whi ch ha s th e s a me sc op e as st at ut or y im m un it y fo r st at e em

pl oyees)

. On rem an d, th e di st ric t co ur t m ay de te rm in e whe th er
to ex erci se su pp le m en ta l ju ris di ct io n o ve r th es e cl ai m s.

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t is rev ers ed
, an d th e c a s e rem an de d fo r pr oc eed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

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

-6

-