N OT F OR P U B L I C A T I ON Fi l e Nam e : 0 7a01 29n . 06 Fi l e d: F e br uar y 1 5, 20 07 No. 06 - 5570 UNI TED S TATES COURT OF AP P EALS FO R T H E SIX T H C IR C U IT
CHRI S TOPHER NELSON,

Plaint i ff- A pp el l ee, ON A P P E A L F R OM T HE v. UNI TED S TATES DI S TRI CT COURT FOR THE W ES TERN MAT T HE W R I D D L E a n d D I S T R I C T OF KE N T U C KY T H O M A S O . M O O R E , i nd i vidu all y a nd i n thei r of f i c i al c apa c i t i e s ; CI TY O F C A D I Z P O L I C E D E P A R T M E N T ,

D efend an t s- A pp el l an t s.

_____________________________________/ B E FO R E : G U Y , SU H R H E IN R IC H , an d G R IFF IN , C i rcuitJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M. A pp el l ants M at thew R i dd l e and Th om as O . M o o re , a p p eal the d i str i ct
cou rt ’ s den i al of

sum m aryj ud g m ent on the basis o f q u al i f i ed imm un i tyi n A pp el l ee C hri st op her N elso n ’s § 1 9 8 3 action all eging an il legal arr est arising ou t of a tr af f ic sto p in vio lati o n o f the Fo u rth A m end m ent. Ap pell ants s eek i nter l ocu t oryreview on this l i m i t ed basis. F or the f oll ow i ng r eason s,
w e RE V ER SE
. I. Atthe t i me of

t he i nc i de nti n que s t i on, A ug us t2002, N e l s on was twen ty - thr e e y e a r s ol d a nd
a r e c e ntgr aduat e of

the Uni ve r s i t yof

I l l i noi s . He ha d r e c e nt l yr e turne d t o the W e s t e rn Ke ntuc ky
a r e a t o l i ve wi t h h i s pa r e nt s a nd s e a r c h f or e mpl oymen t . On the ni g ht of Aug us t 21- 22, 20 02, Ne l s on l e f thi s pa r e nt s ’ ho me on Ol d Hopk i ns vi l l e Roa d i n T r i g g C ou nty , Ke ntuc ky , ou t s i de the c i tyof

### -2-

Cad i z , t o v i s i tf

r i e nds a nd s hop a tt he W a l
- M a rti n Hopki ns vi l l e . Nel s on was i n Hopk i ns vi l l e f r om the e a r l ye ve ni ng un t i l a f t e rmi dni g ht
. Upon l e a vi ng the W a l
- M a rti n Hopk i ns vi l l e , N e l s on dr ove
w e s tb o u n d o n U S H igh w a y6 8 to w a rd s h is p a re n ts ’ h o m e o u ts id e C a d iz
. C ad iz po li ce o f

f icers, D ef

en d an ts M atthe w R idd le an d Th o m as M o o re, w ere p ark ed n ex t t o
eac h o the r in th eir m ark ed p atrol cars, driv er’s do o r to d ri v er’s do o r. A c ivilian “ ri d e alo n g” w as in M oo r e’ s car. Both p a t r ol c a r s we r e pa r a l l e l t o Hi g hwa y68 , wi th Ri ddl e ’ s ve hi c l e f a c i ng i n an east er l ydir ect i on and M oo r e’ s f aci ng i n a w est er l ydir ect i on . Nelson ’ s carpassed thei rpo si t i on at ab o u t 1:3 0 a. m . M o o re t o ld R idd le th at he d id n o t th in k N e ls o n ’s car ha d a li cen se p late. B o th of f i cer s tho ught that N el son ’ s car al so f ai l ed t o hav e il l um i nati on o ver the li cense plat e, as i s r equ i r ed b yK y . R e v . S t. § 1 8 6 .1 7 0
. R id d le f o llo w e d N e ls o n . N elso n tu rne d lef

t o f f o f U S H ig h w ay6 8 o n to R o ck yR idge B ap ti st C h u rch R o ad at a sh o rt dist ance f

r om w here t he o f

f i cer s w er e p arked
. M oo r e, w ho w as w at ching, test i f i ed that justpast that turn Ne l s on was pe rha ps 100 y a r ds i n f r ont of Ri ddl e . Ri ddl e e s t i mat e d tha the c a ug htup t o Ne l s on
w ith in th re e q u a rte rs o f a m ile f ro m th e o f

f ic e rs ’ o rigin a l p a rk e d p o s itio n . Ri ddl e t e s t i f

i e d tha tNe l s on “ c utthe c ur ve” on R ockyRi dg e Roa d, whi c h Ri ddl e thoug ht
c ons t i tut e d e rr a t i c or r e c kl e s s dr i vi ng , tha the s wi t c he d o n h i s pa tr ol c a r ’ s bl ue e mer g e nc yl i g ht s a nd
s i r e n, r a di oe d t o h i s di s pa t c he rtha the ha d i ni t i a t e d apu r s ui t , a nd tha tNel son w as f ai l i ng t o s t op. Acc or di ng to H ol l i s Al e xa nde r , Ca di z ’ s Chi e f of Po l i c e , a po l i c e s i r e n c a n c l e a r l ybe he a r d i n the b a c k gro u n d o f

th e rad io co m m u n ic a tio n b e tw e e n O f f ic e r R id d le an d th e d is p a tc h e r. Ri ddl e s t a t e d tha ton a s t r a i g hts e c t i on of R oc kyR i dg e R oa d j us tpas tt he curve tha tNe l s on ha d “ c ut , ” he wa s a s c l os e a s thr e e c a rl e ng ths t o Nel s on, butNe l s on f a i l e d t o s t op i n r e s pons e t o the bl ue l i g ht s and spo tl i g htR i ddl e had shi ne d i nt o Nel s on’ s r e a rvi e w mi rr or . Ri ddl e t e s t i f i e d tha the h a d rea c h e d d a n gero u s lyh igh sp e e d s w h ile ch a s in g N e ls o n .Nel s on a l l e g e dl y f a i l e d t he c ount down t e s t be c a us e he was i ns truc t e d t o c ountbac kwa r ds 1 f ro m 3 9 to 1 7 , an d h e co u n te d b a c k to 1 4
. K y . R ev. Stat
. A nn . § 52 0.09 5 (W est19 98 ) enti t l ed, “Fleei ng or evad i ng po l i ce i n the f i r st 2 d egr ee,” states th at: 

### -3- Nel s on turne d r i g htont o Ol d Hopk i ns vi l l e Roa d. Ri ddl e , s t i l l aboutthr e e c a rl e ng ths be hi nd N el son , ov er sho tthe turn, and had t o b ack u p to r esu m e h is p u rs u it
. Ridd l e t est i f i ed thathe w as
n o n eth eless ab le t o k eep N elso n in v iew , an d that N elso n w as d ri v ing e rr aticallyo n O ld H o p k ins v il le R oad , cr ossing the centerl i ne o f the h i g hw a ya n d d riv i ng ata veryhig h sp eed. Ridd l e sai d that N e ls o n ’s ta il lig h ts a ls o w e n t o u t, a s if N e ls o n h a d p u rp o s e fu ll y s w it c h e d th e m o ff
. M oor e t e s t i f

i e d tha twhe n h e he a r d the r a di o tr a ns mi s s i on, he j oi ne d the pu r s ui t . He c a ug ht up t o the pur sui t on O l d H opkins vi l l e R oad. H e st at ed that R i ddl e had hi s bl ue em erg en cy li ghts tu rn e d o n d u rin g th e p u rs u it. N el son pu l l ed int o his p ar ents’ d r i vew ayo f f o f O l d H op kinsv i l l e R oad
. Ridd l e t est i f i ed that N els o n ju m ped ou tof

his car , threw bo th arms int o the ai rand y el l ed “w hat?!” R i dd l e sai d that N elso n h ad so m eth ing in his ha n d an d tha t R idd le told h im to slow ly p lace i t o n the gr o u n d
. R idd le ha ndc uf f e d Ne l s on. He thoug htNe l s on was s l ow t o r eactt o v e rba l c omman ds a nd ha d b l oods hot
e y e s . He a l s o thoug ht that N el s on mayha ve be e n u nde rthe i nf l ue nc e of

ma r i j ua na or
m etham ph et am i ne, g i ven his err at i c d r i ving and f ai l ure to stop in r espo nse to the po l i ce blue l i g hts,
a nd a dmi ni s t e r e d f

i e l d s obr i e t yt e s t s . Ne l s on was abl e to st and o n one f ootbu tf

a i l e d the “cou ntdo w n” tes tbyf

ai l i ng t o f

oll ow instructi on s reg ar ding the nu m er i c co un t do w n. Nelson al so 1 f a ile d th e h o riz o n ta l gaz e n y s ta gm u s (H G N ) tes t. Ri ddl e t e s t i f

i e d tha the a rr e s t e d Ne l s on f orf l e e i ng a po l i c e of

f i c e r , i n vi ol a t i on of

Ky . Re v. St a t . Ann. § 520. 095, a nd dr i vi ng un de rthe i nf l ue nc e . Th e DUI r e porti ndi c a t e s tha tthe r e a s on f or 2( 1) A person is g uil t yof f l eei ng or evading po l i ce i n the f i r stdeg r ee: ( a ) W he n, whi l e op e r a t i ng a mot orve hi c l e wi th i nt e ntt o e l ude orf l e e , the pe r s on kn ow i ngl yor w anton l ydisob ey s a dir ect i on t o st op his or herm otor vehicl e, g i ven by a pe r s on r e c og ni z e d t o be a pol i c e of f i c e r , a nd a t l e a s t one ( 1) of t he f oll owi ng con dit i on s exis t s:

. . . 2. Th e per so n i s dri ving un der the inf l uen ce of al coh ol or anyothersub st ance o r co m b ina ti o n o f

su b stan ces in v iolatio n o f K R S 1 8 9 A
. 0 1 0 ;

. . . 4. Byf

l e e i ng orel udi ng , t he per s on i s t he ca us e , orcr e a t e s subst a nt i a l r i s k, of s e rio u s p h y s ic a l in

ju ryo r d e a th to an yp e rs o n o r p ro p e rty. . . .

. . . ( 2 ) F l e e i n g o re v a d i n g p o l i c e in th e fir s td e gr e e is a C l a s s D fe l o n y. K y . R ev. St. § 52 0 .1 0 0 , e nti t l ed “Fleei ng or evading po l i ce i n the secon d d eg r ee, ” provides as f o ll o w s: ( 1) A pe r s on i s g ui l t yof f l e e i ng ore va di ng po l i c e i n the s e c ond de g r e e whe n:

. . . (b) W h il e o p erating a m o tor v eh icle w ith in ten t to e lud e o r f lee, th e p erso n k n o w ingly orwa nt onl ydi s ob e y s a r e c og ni z e d d i r e c t i on t o s t op hi s ve hi c l e , g i ve n b ya pe r s on reco gnized to b e a p eac e o f f icer.

. . . (3 ) F le e in g o r ev a d in g p o lic e in th e se c o n d d e gree is a C la s s A m is d e m e a n o r. 

### -4- st op ping the v ehicle w a s “ [i] nit i al l yf or a l i cense plat e viol at i on , ” and “[ s] econ dlyf or r eckless dri ving, f

l eei ng or evading po l i ce, and D U Isusp i ci on . ” N el son w as t aken t o the l ocal e m er g encyr oo m w here a blood samp l e w as draw n . H e w as the n l odg e d i n the Tr i g g CountyJa i l f orthe r e mai nde rof

the ni g ht
. T he bl ood t e s t s we r e ne g a t i ve f o r alc o h o l o r n a rc o tic s . N el son t el l s a dif

f er ent st ory . He cl ai m s that j ust west of the i nt e r s e c t i on of Hi g hwa y68 a nd I nt e r s t a t e 24, he ob s e rve d two pol i c e c a r s s i t t i ng s i de
- by
- s i de
. Ne l s on t e s t i f i e d tha twhe n h e s a w t he

### -5-

po l i ce ca r s he w as dri ving 53 m ph i n a 55 m ph zon e. N el son stat ed thathe did no tsee em er g ency ligh ts o n th e p o lic e ca rs u n til h e go t o u t o f h is ca r an d R id d le sh o u te d at h im
. Nel s on was pl a c e d i n “ de f e rr e d p r os e c ut i on” f

or six months , a nd a tthe e nd of tha tpe r i od,
no f urther c r i m es having been com m i t t ed, the Tr i g g C ou nty A t t orney dism i ssed the c harg es ag ai nst h im
. Nel s on t he n b r oug htthi s a c t i on a g ai nst M oo r e a nd Ri ddl e , i n b oth the i ri ndi vi dua l a nd of f i c i a l c a pa c i t i e s . Def

e nda nt s m ove d f

orsumma ryj udg men t . The di s tr i c tcou rtden i e d the mot i on. F ir st, the co u rth eld that the re w as a gen u ine issu e o f m aterial f

act as to w h eth er R idd le ha d p rob ab le
cau se to sto p N elso n ’s ve h icle. T h e d istr ict co u rtr eas o n ed that: W hi l e i ti s t rue t ha t Ken tuc kyl a w pr ohi bi t s the op e r a t i on of a mot orve hi c l e wi thout an il lum ina ted r ear li cen se p late, n eithe r O f f icer M o o re n o r O f

f icer R idd le co u ld de t e rmine w hethe rNe l s on’ s c a rwa s i n f a c tl a c ki ng a pr ope rl i c e ns e pl a t e wi thout f u rth er i n v estig ation
. A t th at p o int, O f f icer R idd le co u ld o n lyh av e h ad r eas o n ab le su sp icion that a n o n -m o v ing tr af f ic vio lati o n w as o ccu rr ing. Th e ad d it ion al f acto rs c i t e d b yOf

f i c e rRi ddl e a s j us t i f

i c a t i on f orthe e ns ui ng pu r s ui ti nc l ude a c c e l e r a t i on, c u ttin g a cu rv e , an d th e am b igu o u s lyd e s c rib e d erra tic d riv in g. Th e distr i ctcou rtal so rej ect ed the of f i cer s’ con t enti on that theyw er e enti t l ed t o q uali f i ed im m u n ity . It r eas o n ed that:

T h e q u estio n o f

im m u n ityin th e ins tan t case tu rns o n w h eth er a r eas o n ab le pe r s on i n p os s e s s i on of

the f a c t s kn own byOf

f i c e r s Ri ddl e a nd M oor e woul d b e l i e ve tha t the P laintif

f w as vio lati n g K R S 1 8 6
. 1 7 0 , 1 8 6
. 9 9 0 (1). T h e C o u rt h a s c a re f u ll y r eview ed the f

act s of the re cord an d , a s d is cussed here i n-abo ve, no t es that se veral f a c tua l di s put e s e xi s tc e ntr a l t o the de t e rmi na t i on of whe the rOf

f i c e r s Ri ddl e a nd M oor e c oul d ha ve r e a s onabl ybel i e ve d pr obabl e caus e exi s t e d t o a rr e s tNe l s on a ta ny tim e d u rin g th e p u rs u it an d res u ltin g ev e n ts . D ef endant s soug hti nt er l ocut oryr evi ew i n thi s C our tof thatpor t i on of

the di str i ctc ourt’ s
o rd e r th a t d e n ie d su m m a ryju d gm e n t o n th e b a s is o f q u a lif ie d im m u n ity
. II.

### -6-

Def e nda nt s a r g ue that thei rde c i s i on t o a rr e s tNe l s on f orthe of f e ns e of f l e e i ng ore va di ng p o li ce sh o u ld b e p rotec ted b ythe d o ctri n e o f q u alif ied im m u n ityb eca u se N elso n n ev er stop p ed h is car in resp o n se to the o f f icers’ em erg en cyli ghts an d sir en s as th eyp u rsu ed h im , an d itis no t cl early
e s t a bl i s he d i n apa rt i c ul a r i z e d s e ns e tha ta po l i c e of f i c e rvi olat es pr obabl e c a us e s t a nda r ds by
a rre s tin g a m o to ris t f

o r f a ilin g to sto p w h e n sign a le d to d o so . Bef or e a ddr e s s i ng the me r i t s of thi s a r g ume nt , ho wev e r , we mus ta ddr e s s the s ubs t a nt i ve a nd pr oc e dur a l do c t r i ne s whi c h g ove rn thi s type of appe a l
. Gove rnm ent o f f i c i a l s pe r f

ormi ng d iscretion aryf

u n ction s are en titl e d to q u alif ied im m u n ityf

rom su itf

o r civ il d am ages u n less th eir
a c tio n s h a v e v io la te d a c le a rlyes ta b lis h e d sta tu to ryo r co n s titu tio n a l righ t. H a rlo w v . Fi t

zge rald , 45 7 U . S
. 8 0 0 , 8 1 8 ( 1 9 8 2 ). Th u s, to s h o w that a § 1 9 8 3 d ef en d an t is n o t en ti tl ed to im m u n ityf rom su it , a p l ai nti f f m ust p r ov e that ( 1) the f act s as al l eg ed bythe p l ai nti f f sho w a violat i on of

a con st i tuti on al righ t; an d (2 ) su c h righ t w a s cle a rlyes ta b lis h e d
. Sa u cier v. Ka tz , 5 3 3 U .S . 1 9 4 , 2 0 0 (2 0 0 1 ). A d istr ict co u rt ’s de n ial o f a d ef en d an t’ s claim o f

q u a li fied im m u n ity , to th e ex ten t th at i t turns on an i ssue of

l aw , i s an app eal able f

i nal deci si on w i thin 2 8 U
. S.C. § 12 91 u nd erthe co l l at er al
o rd e r d o c trin e . Mitch ell v. Fo rsy th , 4 7 2 U .S . 5 1 1 , 5 3 0 (1 9 8 5 ). H o w e v e r, Mitch ellis l im it ed to
a ppe a l s c ha l l e ng i ng pu r e l yl e g a l i s s ue s of whe the rthe a l l e g e d f

a c t s a mount e d t o ac onst i t uti on al violat i on and w hether the con st i tuti on al ri g ht w as clea r l yestabl i shed
. Itdo es no tapp l yt o a distr i ct
c o u rt’s d e te rm in a tio n a b o u t w h a t f a c tu a l iss u e s are gen u in e an d triab le
. Joh nso n v. Jon es , 515 U. S. 30 4, 31 3 (19 95 )
. That i s, “sum m aryj ud g m ent det erm i nati on s are ap pealable w hen theyr esolve a di s put e c onc e rni ng a n abs t r a c ti s s ue of l a w r e l a t i ng t o q ual i f i e d i mmuni ty–typi c a l l y , the i s s ue
w hether the f

ederal r i g ht al l eg edlyi nf r i nged w as cl ear l yest abli shed
. ” Beh rens v. Pel l et i er , 51 6 U. S. 299, 31 3 ( 1996 )
. T hus , “ ‘ i n o r de rf oran i nt e r l oc ut oryapp e a l t o b e appr opr i a t e , a de f e nda nts e e ki ng q u alif ied im m u n itym u st b e w il li n g to co n ced e to th e f acts as all eged b ythe p laintif f an d d iscu ss o n ly

### -7-

the leg al i ssues r ai sed b ythe case. ’ ” LeMarb e v. W isneski , 26 6 F
. 3d 42 9, 43 5 ( 6th Ci r . 20 01) (q u o tin g Sh eh ee v. Lu ttrell , 1 9 9 F .3 d 2 9 5 , 2 9 9 (6 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 )). s e e al s o Wi lhe lm v . Bo ggs , 29 0 F
. 3d 8 2 2 , 8 2 4 -25 ( 6 th C ir
. 2 0 0 2 ) (disc u ssin g stan d ard s); W i l l i am s v. M

ehra , 1 8 6 F . 3 d 6 8 5 , 6 8 9 -90 ( 6 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (en b a n c ) (sa m e ). F ina ll y , “reg ard less o f the d istr ict co u rt ’s reaso n s” f o r the d en ial o f q u alif

ied im m u n ity , this C o u rt m a ye x e rc is e ju ris d ic tio n o v e r th e a p p e a l to th e e x te n t it ra is e s q u e s tio n s o f law
. Wi l l i ams , 18 6 F .3 d at 6 8 9 -9 0 (cita tio n s o m itte d ). T h is C o u rtr ev iew s th e d istr ict co u rt ’s gr an t o r d en ial o f su m m aryjud gm en t de n ovo , un der F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ). I

d. at 68 9. Su m m ary j ud g m ent i s w arr anted w here “the p l eading s, dep osit i on s,
an sw ers to in terr o gatories, an d ad m issio n s o n f il e, togeth er w ith the af

f ida v it s, if an y , sh o w that the re i s no g e nui ne i s s ue a s t o a ny mat e r i a l f a c t a nd tha t the movi ng pa rty i s e nt i t l e d t o a j udg men t as a matt e rof l a w. ” Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 56( c )
. I n r e s ol vi ng thi s que s t i on, we vi e w t he f a c tua l e vi de nc e a nd d ra w all re a s o n a b le in f

e re n c e s in f

a v o r o f th e n o n -m o v in g p a rty . Wi l l i ams , 18 6 F
. 3d a t68 9. A n onm o v a n t m u s t sh o w su f f ic ie n t ev id e n c e to cre a te a gen u in e iss u e o f m a te ria l f

a c t. I d. A “m ere
s c i nt i l l a of

e vi de nc e i s i ns uf

f i c i e nt ; ‘ t he r e m us tbe e vi de nc e on w hi c h t he j uryc oul d r e a s onabl yf i nd f or the [non
- m ov ant. ] ’ ” I d. (q u o tin g An derso n v. Libert y Lo bby, I

nc. , 4 7 7 U . S
. 2 4 2 , 2 5 2 ( 1 9 8 6 ))
. T h is C o u rt rev iew s m ixe d q u estio n s o f law an d f

act de no v o. I

d. A d is tric t c o u rt’s “fin d in gs of ul t i mat e f

a c t s ba s e d upon t he a ppl i c a t i on of l e g a l pr i nc i pl e s t o s ubs i di a ryf a c t s a r e s ubj e c tt o de
no vo r eview
. ” I

d. T hus , a di s t r i c tc ourt ’ s den i a l of qua l i f i e d i mmuni ty , a mi xe d q ue s t i on of l a w a nd f a c t , i s r e vi e wed de n ovo . S ee G reg o r y v . C it y o f Lo u isvill e , 4 4 4 F.3 d 7 2 5 , 7 4 2 ( 6 th C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ), peti t i on f

or cert i ora rif

i l ed , 7 5 U S LW 3 0 6 5 (J u ly3 1 , 2 0 0 6 ) (N o . 0 6 -1 7 1 ). I n this case , D ef

end ants a ckn ow l edge the di str i ct cou rtruled t hat a qu est i on of f actexist ed as t o w hether D ef

end ants had p r ob able c ause t o arr estN el son . Ho w ever, theycl ai m that the d i str i ctN elso n d o es n o t oth erw ise arg u e tha t a v iolatio n o f K y . R ev . S t. § 5 2 0
. 0 9 5 an d K y . R ev . St. 3 § 5 20
. 10 0 w ou l d n ot g i ve ri se t o p r ob able c ause. 

### -8- co u rterr o n eo u slyh eld that the q u estio n o f im m u n ityturn ed o n w h eth er a r eas o n ab le pe rso n in p o sse ssio n o f

the o f f icers’ kn o w led ge w o u ld h av e b eliev ed that N elso n w as vio lati n g K y . R ev . St. § 1 86. 17 0 an d Ky
. Re v. St
. § 186. 990, whi c h r e qui r e tha tl i c e ns e pl a t e s on mot or i s t s ’ ve hi c l e s be i l l um i nated. Def

end ants con t end t hat the f ocu s sho uld i nstead be on the of f i cer s’ decisi on t o arr est Nel s on f or“ f l e e i ng f r om the po l i c e ” i n v i ol a t i on of Ky . Re v. St
. § 520. 095 a nd Ky
. R e v. St
. 52 0. 100. The ya s s e rt t h a t , i n t h e l a t t e r c o n t e x t , th e u n c o n t e s t e d f a c t s a r e th a t Ne l s o n f

a i l e d t o p u l l o v e ra nd sto p w h en signa led b yR idd le. Th eyarg u e N elso n ’s asse rt ion that h e “n ev er kn ew ” the o f f icers w ere p u rsu ing h im is i rr elev an t i n this § 1 9 8 3 an aly sis, an d that th e p u re l egal i ssu e to b e d ecid ed is whe the rDe f

e nda nt s we r e c l e a r l yon no t i c e tha tt he i rdec i s i on t o arr e s tN e l s on f orf l e e i ng ore va di ng
w h en h e f

ailed to sto p w o u ld b e u n law f u l. I t i s b ey o n d q u estio n that in A u gus t 20 0 2 , N elso n h ad a clearlyest a b li s h ed Fo u rth A m e n d m e n t righ t to b e f re e fro m a rre s t w ith o u t p ro b a b le ca u s e . S ee B eckv. O h io , 37 9 U. S. 89 , 90
- 9 1 ( 1 9 6 4 ); Cris s v . Ci t

y of Ke nt , 8 6 7 F .2 d 2 5 9 , 2 6 2 ( 6 th C ir. 1 9 8 8 ). I t is a ls o tru e th a t if , i n fact , Nel s on f a i l e d t o s t op w hen sign aled , D ef en d an ts h ad p rob ab le cau se to arr est. 3 Thu s , the ul t i mat e f

a c t i n t hi s c a s e –whe the rDe f e nda nt s ha d p r obabl e c a us e t o a rr e s tNe l s on fo r fa il in g to s to p
– tu rn s o n t h e s u b s id ia ry o r b a s ic f a c t o f w h eth er a n dw h en D efen da n ts sign a ledh im t o s t op . Se e g e ne r al l

y Wi l l i ams , 18 6 F. 3d at69 0 (explai ning that the iss ue o f ult i m at e f

act , w hich
r e qui r e s thi s Courtt o c ompa r e the de f e nda nt s ’ c ondu c twi th a l e g a l s t a nda r d, i s di s t i ng ui s ha bl e f r om i ssues of sub si diary or basic f

act , w hich con cern wh at act i on s the d ef end ants per f

orm ed). To an sw erR ather than “con ceding t o f act s as a lle ged bythe p l ai nti f f , ” s e e M ar be , 26 6 F
. 3d a t36 5, 4 D e f e n d a n ts co n te n d th a t th o s e f a c ts are irrele v a n t, b e c a u s e N e ls o n f a ile d to sto p w h e n sign a le d
. 

### -9- this q u estio n , w e m u st v iew the f actu al ev ide n ce an d d raw a ll r eas o n ab le i n f eren ces in N elso n ’s f av o r. Se e Wi l l i ams , 1 8 6 F .3 d at 6 8 9
. 4 Def e nda nt s c ont e nd t ha tNe l s on’ s t e s t i monytha the “ ne ve rkn e w t he yw e r e the r e , orbe hi nd me, ” f a i l s t o r e but t he of

f i c e r s ’ t e s t i mony tha t the y pur s ue d Nel s on wi th e mer g e nc y l i g ht s a nd s i r e ns
o f th e ir p a tro l ca rs ac tiv a te d an d th a t N e ls o n f a ile d to sto p . W e agre e . Nel s on ne ve run e qui voc a l l ys t a t e d t ha tt he eme r g e nc yl i g ht s w e r e noton pr i ort o the t i me he got o u t of

h is car an d R idd le s h o u te d a t h im , b u t con sisten tl yco u ch ed h is an sw ers in term s o f h is “su bjective aw aren ess , ” w h ich as D ef en d an ts asse rtis ir re le v a n t i n asse ssin g w h at a r eas o n ab ly
o bje c tiv e p o lic e o f

f ic e r w o u ld h a v e b e lie v e d
. O n e ex c h a n ge is p a rtic u la rlytellin g: Q: Oka y . S o t e l l me i f I ’ m w r on g t he n. I f

tha t ’ s y ourr e c ol l e c t i on, the n y our testim o n y is t h at th e p o li ce o f f icers– tha t O f

f icer R idd le did n o t hav e h is e mer g e nc yorbl ue l i g ht s on a s he f ol l owe d y ou. A : In e v e r k n e w if

h e w a s f o llo w in g m e . F u rth er, N elso n n ev er asse rt ed in h is co m p laint tha t th e li ghts w ere n o t o n (p ri o r to h is arr iva l ath is p aren ts’ h o m e) an d d o es n o t m ak e this as sertion o n ap p eal eithe r. T h u s, “th e b est inferen ce av ailab le t o [N el son ] i s that he w as simp l yu naw ar e o f A pp el l ants’ ef

f ort s t o g ethim to st op his car , ” w hich d o es n o t r eb u t D ef

en d an ts’ u n eq u ivo cal testim o n ythat the y signa led h im p ri o r to h is stop p ing at his pa r e nt s ’ ho me a nd t ha the f a i l e d t o r e s pond
. Nel s on t he r e f or e f a i l e d t o mee thi s bu r de n o f pr oduc i ng
m o re th a n “a m e re sc in tilla o f ev id e n c e ” o n w h i c h t h e ju ryco u ld f in d f o r h im
. Se e Wi l l i ams , 18 6 F. 3d a t68 9. I n su m , this C o u rth o lds th at N elso n d id n o t m eet h is b u rde n o f sh o w ing tha t th e d ef

en d an ts
a re n o t en title d to q u a lif ie d im m u n ity
. Se e Sh e e ts v . M ul l i ns , 28 7 F . 3d 581, 58 6 ( 6th Ci r . 20 02)
. F or

### -10-

th e s e r e a s o n s , w e n e e d n o t r e l y o n t h e d i s tr i c t c o u rt ’ s in c o rr e c tfo c u s o n th e a l l e ge d v i o l a t i o n s o f K y. R e v . S t. § 1 8 6 .1 7 0 an d K y . R e v . S t. § 1 8 6 .9 9 0
. III. Fo rthe f oreg oing r eason s, w e ho l d thatD ef end ants Ridd l e and M oo r e ar e enti t l ed to qu al i f i ed i mmuni ty , a nd RE V ER SE the or de rof the di s tr i c tc ourt d eny i ng the m qua l i f i e d i mmuni ty , a nd REM AND f

orf urt he rpr oc e e di ng s c ons i s t e ntwi th thi s op i ni on.

### -11-

Ral ph B. G uy, Jr . , di s s e nt i ng. As the ma j or i tya c knowl e dg e s , f

orthi s c ourtt o h a ve j uri sdict i on ov eran i nter l ocu t oryapp eal f r om the denial of qu al i f i ed i m m un i ty , the def

end ant mu st “con cede the m ost f

avo r able vi ew of t he f

act s t o the p l ai nti f

f f or pu rpo ses of

the ap peal. ” Be r r

y man
v. Rieger , 15 0 F
. 3d 561, 56 3 ( 6th Ci r . 19 98)
. De f e nda nt s a r g ue tha t , w ha t e ve rel s e ma ybe di s put e d, the e vi de nc e de mons t r a t e d pr obabl e ca us e t o arr e s tpl a i nt i f f f orf l e e i ng oreva di ng a n o f

f i c e r . F l e e i ng
or e v a d ing r equ i r es that a person op er at i ng a mo t or vehicl e w i th inte nt t o elude o rf l ee, m ust kn ow i ngl yor w anton l ydisob eya dir ect i on t o stop the vehicl e g i ven bya person r ecogni zed to be an
o f f ic e r. K Y . R EV . S T AT . §§ 52 0. 095 a nd 520. 100. To be sur e , N e l s on di d n ots t op hi s c a run t i l he p ark ed itin h is d ri v ew ay . Fo r p rob ab le ca u s e , h o w ev er, the m aterial q u estio n is w h eth er a
re a s o n a b le o ff

ic e r w o u ld h a v e b e li e v e d th a t N e ls o n ’s f a il u re to s to p w a s a k n o w in g d is re ga rd o f a
r e c og ni z e d o f

f i c e r ’ s s i g na l t o st op. I n ot he rw or ds , w oul d a r e a s onabl e of f i c e rha ve be l i e ve d Ne l s on
wa s o rs ho ul d ha ve b e e n a wa r e o f Ri dd l e ’ s a t t e mp tt o s t op h i m. I f Ri ddle’ s test i m on yi s t o b e be l i e ve d, Ne l s on f a i l e d t o s t op e ve n thoug h a n o f f i c e ri n a
marke d c a ra c t i va t e d hi s l i g ht s and si r e n, ca me wi thi n t hr e e ca rl e ng ths of t he c a rdu r i ng the hi g hsp eed p u rsu it , an d d ir ected a sp o tl ig h t i n to th e b ack w ind o w o f N el s o n ’s c a r. T h is w o u ld
un do ub t edlyest abli sh p r ob able c ause. Def e n d a n ts arg ue ther e can be no qu est i on of f actbecause N el son did no t( and f

or that matt ercou l d n ot) t est i f ythat R i dd l e’ s li g hts w er e n ot o n. O n thati ssue, N elso n said all that h e c o u ld u n d er th e circu m stan ces
— tha t he d id n o t see Ri ddl e ’ s l i g ht s orthe po l i ce ca run t i l af

t erR i dd l e pu l l ed int o h i s dri vew ay . As Isee i t , this misses the crux of the case. N el son ar g ued that the m ost f avo r ab le v ie w o f

a l l the ev i den ce perm i t s an i nf er ence that R idd le d id n o t com e clo se en o u gh to N elso n ’s car du ri n g the p u rsu itf o r a reaso n ab le off

icer t o beli eve N el son kn ow i ngl ydisob ey ed a r ecogni zed of f i cer ’ s si g nals t o st op . Th at eviden ce i nclud es testim o n ythat the sig h t l ine s w ere sh o rto n the cu rvy , h il ly , p o o rl ylit roa d s o v er w h ich the tw o -m il e

### -12-

p u rsu itw as co n d u cted
. Th ere is no d isp u te th at N elso n h ad a h ead start , a n d t h a t R idd le on ly i nit i at ed p ursuitaf

t erob serving N el son g oing i nto a sharp curve. Even O f f i cerM oo r e t est i f

i ed that h e co u ld n o t see R idd le’s pa tr o l car u n ti l he ap p roa ch ed the sce n e o u tside p laintif f’s r esid en ce o n O ld H op kinsv i l l e R oad
. To thi s i s add ed Nelson ’ s t est i m on y that he had t o sl ow t o near l y a st op i n o r der t o ma ke the s ha rp turn o nt o Ol d Hopk i ns vi l l e Roa d— a turn tha tRi ddl e a dmi t t e dl yov e r s hot
. F r om that, N el son ar g ues thati f R i dd l e had been f

oll ow i ng cl ose eno ugh f or his l i g hts t o b e seen , then R i d d l e s h o u l d a l s o h a v e s e e n N e l s o n ’ s b r a k e l i g h t s a n d w o u l d n o th a v e m i s s e d th e tu rn h i m s e l f. In
a ddi t i on, Ne l s on s pe c i f i c a l l yave rr e d b ywa yof a f f i da vi ttha tthe r e wa s a de l a yof 30 t o 4 5 s e c onds be tween the t i m e tha the a rr i ve d i n the dr i ve wayof hi s ho me a nd whe n Ri ddl e pu l l e d i nt o the d riv e w a yb e h in d h im
. T h is , N e ls o n argu e s , su p p o rts h is cla im th a t R id d le w a s n o t clo s e en o u gh du r i ng the p ursuitf

o r a re ason able of

f i cerun der the cir cum st ances t o b el i eve thatN el son had knowi ng l yorwa nt onl ydi s obe y e d ar e c og ni z e d o f f i c e r ’ s s i g na l t o s t op. B ecause Ibeli eve the dis pu t ed f act s con cerning the pursuit cr eat e a qu est i on of f actw hether there w as probab l e cau se to arr estN el son f or f l eei ng o relud i ng an of

f i cer , I w ou l d af

f i rm the d enial of qu al i f i ed imm un i t yon N el son ’ s cl ai m that he w as arr est ed w i tho ut probab l e cause.