A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antthe part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### O c t ob e r 23, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT D A N I E L L E R H O T E N , as an i ndi vi dual and as hei ratl aw of X avi erR hot en, dece as ed,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. FR A N K PA SE , as an age ntand empl oy ee of

T opeka, K ans as , and as a n i n d i v i d u a l ; CI T Y OF T OP E KA, K A N SA S, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees, and BR UC E DI CK S ON, I V,

D e fe n d a n t. N o. 06- 3346 ( D. C. No . 0 4 - CV- 4 1 6 0 - S AC)

(D . K a n .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y and AN DE RS ON , C i r cui tJ udges , and BROR BY , S e n io r C irc u it J udge.- 2-

P lai n ti ff D an iel le R h o ten a p p ea ls from the d istri ct co u rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary ju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f

d e fe n d a n ts C ity o f

T o p e k a , K a n s a s , a n d F ra n k P a s e , a T opeka Pol i ce D epart m entl i eut enant , on hercl ai m under42 U . S. C . § 1983 for vi ol at i on of herr i ghtt o s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s . E xer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on under 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , w e a ffir m . I. A r ound 7: 00 p. m . on February5, 2004, B ruce D i cks on, I V , w as dr i vi ng on T opeka Boul evar d i n T opeka a ts peeds exce edi ng the pos t ed 35 m. p. h. s peed l i m i t , even though t he s tr eet s w er e s l i ck, i cy , and s l us hy . L t . Pas e not i ced M r . D i cks on’ s s peedi ng, qui ck l ane c hanges , and pas s i ng of vehi cl es and dee m ed hi m t o be a da ngert o the publ i c. L t . Pas e pur s ued M r . D i cks on i n hi s unm arked, dark bl ue pol i ce c arw i thoutus i ng ei therthe l i ght s orthe s i r en and w i thout cont act i ng t he pol i ce di s pat cher . B efor e Lt . Pas e w as abl e t o s t op M r . D i cks on, M r. D ick so n h it a v a n in w h ich M s. R h o ten w a s a p a ss e n g e r. S h e w a s s e v e re ly inju re d a n d h e r u n b o rn c h ild , w h o s e b ir th w a s e x p e c te d in tw o w e e k s , d ie d . M s. R ho t en fil ed a co m plai nt i n d i stri ctcou rtal l eging t hat because L t . P ase di d notus e l i ght s and a s i r en ors um m on as s i s t ance w hen enga gi ng i n a h ig h -sp e e d c h a se , h e c re a ted a d a n g e ro u s c o n d iti o n re su lti n g in h e r inju rya n d in th e v io latio n o f

h e r su b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts. S h e a lso a lleg e d th a t th e C ity o f T o p e k a c u sto m a rilya llo w e d p o lice o ffice rs to sp e e d w ith o u t ac tiv a tin g lig h ts- 3-

ors i r ens , al l ow ed off

i cer s t o i gnor e s t at e l aw s and ci tyr egul at i ons foract i vat i ng l i ght s and s i r ens dur i ng emer gencyoper at i ons , and di d notdi s ci pl i ne off i cer s for do i ng so, t herebyplaci ng her i n d ang er i n v i olat i on of h er s ub st anti ve d ue p rocess ri g h ts . T h e C ity o f

T o p e k a a n d L t. P a s e b o th file d m o tio n s fo r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. L t . Pas e ar gued thathe w as ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni tybeca us e ther e w as no cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on as ther e w as no caus al connec t i on betw een the ac ci dent and hi s conduct . I n addi t i on, he as s er t ed thatbeca us e hi s conductdi d nots hock the cons ci ence and bec aus e he di d nott ake a ffi r m at i ve ac t i on pl aci ng M s . R hot en in d a n g e r, h e d id n o t v io la te h e r s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p ro c e s s ri g h ts . T he di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entt o L t . Pas e and the C i tyof T o p e k a a f

te r c o n c lu d in g th a t M s . R h o te n ’s c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts w e re n o t v io la te d . C o n stru ing the fac ts i n the ligh t m o st fav o rab le t o h er, th e c o u rtfo u n d that there w as no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tw hetherL t . Pas e’ s conducti nfl uence d M r. D i ckson ’s con du ctor w as causal l yrel at ed to M s. R ho t en’s i njur i es, becau se M r. D icks o n w as u n aw are that L t. P ase w as p u rsuin g h im . In a d d it ion , the c o u rt concl uded thatL t . Pas e’ s fai l ur e t o us e hi s l i ght s ors i r en di d notr ai s e a que s t i on of factw hetherhe creat ed a d ang er that r esul t ed in M s. R ho t en’s i njur i es, becau se thatdangeral r eadyexi s t ed byvi r tue of M r . D i cks on’ s dr i vi ng. A s an al t ernat i ve b a sis fo r g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t, th e c o u rt d e c id e d th a t L t. P a se ’s a c ts d id nots hock the cons ci ence of the court . L as t l y , the courtconcl uded thatr es ol ut i onT he di s tr i ctcourtdecl i ned t o exer ci s e s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on overany 1 p e n d in g s ta te -l a w c la im s .

- 4- o f th e c o n stitu tio n a l cla im a g a in st L t. P a se a lso d e fe a ted th e c o n stitu tio n a l cla im a g a in s t th e C ity o f T o p e k a . M s . R h o te n a p p e a le d . 1 II.

A. B efor e cons i der i ng the mer i t s of thi s appea l , w e fi r s taddr es s pr ocedur al co n ce rns. F ed era l R u le of A p p ell ate P roc ed u re 2 8 (a)(7) req u ir es a n ap p ell an t’ s br i ef t o cont ai n “a s t at ementof fa ct s r el evantt o the i s s ues s ubm i t t ed forr evi ew w i th appr opr i at e r efe r ence s t o t he r ecor d. ” The St at ementof the Fact s s ect i on of M s . R hot en’ s br i ef, how ever , s t at es onl yt he fol l ow i ng: “See A ppendi x, her ei naft er‘ A pl t . A pp. ’ atpp. 27- 59. ” A pl t . B r . at3. T hes e appe ndi x pages r efe r t o herr es pons e t o t he C i tyof Topeka’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entand th e re fo re d o n o t s a tis f yth e re q u ir e m e n ts o f R u le 2 8 (a )( 7 ). See als o 1 0 th Ci r . R. 28. 4 ( di s appr ovi ng of i ncorpor at i ng byr efe r ence s t at ementof fa ct s i n di s tr i ct c o u rt p le a d in g a n d n o tin g th a t in c o rp o ra tio n d o e s n o t s a tis f yR u le 2 8 (a )) . I n addi t i on, the ar gum ents ect i on of herbr i ef l acks appr opr i at e r efe r ence s t o r el evantr ecor d author i ty ; s he aga i n ci t es t o herr es pons e t o the C i tyof T opeka’ s s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on r athert han t o r ecor d evi dence t o s uppor ther ar gum ent s . H erci t at i on t o a di s tr i ctcourtbr i ef doe s notful fi l l t he F e d . R . A p p . P . 2 8 (e ) r e q u ir e m e n t fo r c ita tio n s to th e a p p e n d ix . C f . D oeb l ers’W e re m in d c o u n se l o f th e d u tyto fo llo w th e a p p e llate a n d T e n th C irc u it 2 ru le s .

- 5- P a. H ybr i ds , Inc. v. D oebl er , 4 4 2 F .3 d 8 1 2 , 8 2 0 n .8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (d e c id in g p a rty cannotful fi l l obl i gat i on t o pr ovi de r ecor d s upportbyci t i ng t o s t at ementof u n d is p u te d fa c ts in s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t m o tio n ). A l though w e maydi s m i s s M s . R hot en’ s appea l due t o herfai l ur e t o fol l ow th e ru le s o f

a p p e lla te p ro c e d u re , w e d e c lin e to d o s o . See MacArthurv. San Juan C o u n ty , 495 F. 3d 1157, 1161 ( 10th C i r . 2007) . G i ven the appe ndi ces pr ovi ded by b o th p a rties , w e h a v e a su fficie n t re c o rd to re v iew th e m e rits o f th is a p p e a l an d to c o n c lu d e M s . R h o te n ’s a rg u m e n ts a re w ith o u t m e ri t. See i d. ; Fry a r v . C u rtis , 4 8 5 F .3 d 1 7 9 , 1 8 2 n .1 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). W e , h o w e v e r, w ill re so lv e a n yu n c e rta in ty re g a rd in g th e fa c ts a g a in s t h e r. See Al ber t y- Vel ezv. C or

por aci on de Puerto R i co P ar a La D i

f us i on P ubl i ca , 361 F. 3d 1, 4 n. 1 ( 1s tC i r . 2004) ( s um m aryj udgm ent ca se). 2 B. M s. R h o ten a rgu es th at th e d istri ct co u rterred in g ran ti n g su m m ary j udgm entt o L t . Pas e and the C i tyof Topeka and i n concl udi ng thatt heydi d not vi ol at e hers ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s r i ght s . “W e r evi ew t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s gr ant o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t de novo . ” G r aves v. Thom as , 450 F. 3d 1215, 1217 (10t h C i r. 20 06 ). S um m aryj ud gm ent i s proper “i f t he p l eadings, dep osi t i on s, a n sw e rs to in ter ro g a to rie s, a n d a d m iss io n s o n file, to g e th e r w ith th e a ffid a v its, if- 6-

a n y , sh o w th a t th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial fa c t an d th a t th e m o v in g p a rty i s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) . “W her e the r ecor d t aken a s a w hol e coul d notl ead a r at i onal tr i erof fa ctt o fi nd forthe nonm ovi ng party , t her e i s no genui ne i s s ue fortr i al . ” Sc o tt v. Ha rr is , 1 2 7 S . C t. 1 7 6 9 , 1 7 7 6 (2 0 0 7 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). In r eview i ng the d i stri ctcou rt ’s grantof sum m aryj ud gm ent, w e fi rs t c o n s i d e rth e c l a i ms a g a i n s tLt . P a s e . I n r e s p o n s e t o th e c l a i ms a g a i n s th i m, L t . Pas e as s ert ed an e nt i t l ementt o qual i fi ed i m m uni ty . W hen r es ol vi ng the qual i fi ed i m m uni tyques t i on, w e fi r s tcons i derw hetherthe fa ct s al l eged s how t hat L t. P a s e ’s c o n d u c t v io la te d a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t. S e e id . a t1 7 7 4 . On l yi f we det erm i ne thatther e has been a cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on w i l l w e pr ocee d t o the nexts t ep i n the qual i fi ed i m m uni tyanal y s i s and dec i de w hetherthatr i ghtw as c le a rl ye s ta b lis h e d w ith in th e s p e c ific c o n te x t o f th is c a s e . S e e id . W hether M s. R ho t en all eged con du ctbyL t . P ase that vi olat ed a co nst i tuti on al ri gh ti s a q u e s tio n o f

la w w e re v ie w d e n o v o . R a d e c k i v. B a re la , 146 F. 3d 1227, 1229 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). B e c a u se w e c o n c lu d e a f ter d e n o v o re v iew th a t M s. R h o ten d id notal l ege the vi ol at i on of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght , w e nee d notaddr es s the nexts t ep in th e q u a lifie d im m u n ity a n a lysis . See G r aves , 4 5 0 F .3 d a t 1 2 1 8 . “Subs t ant i ve due pr oces s pr ot ect s i ndi vi dual s agai ns t‘ arbi tr aryact i on of g o v e rn m e n t’ th a t d e p riv e s a c iti z e n o f life , li b e rtyo r p ro p e rty‘w h e th e r th e fa u lt l i es i n a deni al of funda m ent al pr ocedur al fai rnes s . . . ori n the exe r ci s e of pow er- 7-

w i thoutanyr eas onabl e j us t i fi cat i on i n the s ervi ce of a l egi t i m at e governm ent al obj ect i ve. ’ ” P er ezv. Uni f i ed G ov’ tof

W yandot t e C ount

y/ Kan. C i t y, Kan. , 432 F. 3d 1163, 1166 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng C o u n ty o f Sa c ra m e n to v . L e w is , 5 2 3 U .S . 8 3 3 , 8 4 5 -4 6 (1 9 9 8 )) , cer t . deni ed , 126 S. C t . 2971 ( 2006) . “The ul t i m at e s t andar d fordet erm i ni ng w hetherther e has been a s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s vi ol at i on i s w hetherthe cha l l enged gove rnm entact i on s hocks the cons ci ence of fe der al j udges . ” Mo o re v . G u th rie , 4 3 8 F . 3 d 1 0 3 6 , 1 0 4 0 (10 th C ir . 2006) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . “[I ] n a hi gh- s peed a ut om obi l e cha s e ai m ed at a p p re h e n d in g a su sp e c ted o ffe n d e r . . . o n lya p u rp o se to c a u se h a rm u n re late d to the l egi t i m at e obj ectof arr es tw i l l s at i s fythe el ementof arbi tr aryconduct s hocki ng t o the cons ci ence , nece s s aryfora due pr oces s vi ol at i on. ” L e w is , 5 2 3 U .S . a t 8 3 6 . B eca us e the ac ci denti n thi s cas e i nvol ved a thi r d par ty , M r . D i cks on, M s . R hot en ar gues thatL t . Pas e cr eat ed a da ngerforheri n vi ol at i on of her s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s r i ght s byengagi ng i n a hi gh s peed pur s ui tw i thoutus i ng lig h ts a n d sire n . “T h e d a n g e r c re a tio n th e o ryis a n e x c e p tio n to th e ru le th a t sta te act or s ar e notl i abl e fort he vi ol entact s of thi r d par t i es . ” Moo re , 438 F. 3d at 1 0 4 2 . It “m a k e s a sta te o fficia l li a b le fo r th e p riv a te v io len c e o f th ird p a rties if thatoffi ci al cr eat ed the dange rthatcaus ed the harm and the off i ci al ’ s conduct w as cons ci ence s hocki ng. ” Id . T he dange r - cr eat i on theory“appl i es onl yw hen a s t at e ac t oraff

i r m at i vel yact s t o cr eat e, ori ncr eas es a pl ai nt i ff’ s vul ner abi l i tyt o,- 8-

dangerfr om pr i vat e vi ol ence . ” Id . (q u o tatio n o m itt e d ). A six -p a rt tes t ap p lies to a n a ly z e c laim s u n d e r th e d a n g e r-c re a tio n th e o ry : a pl ai nt i ff mustdemonstr at e that( 1) the cha r ged s t at e ent i tyand the ch arg ed ind ividu al ac tors cre ated the d an g er o r i n cre ase d p lai n ti ff ’s vul ner abi l i tyt o the dange ri n s om e w ay ; ( 2) pl ai nt i ff w as a mem ber of a l i m i t ed and s peci fi cal l ydefi nabl e gr oup; ( 3) defe ndant s ’ conduct p u t p lain tiff

a t su b sta n tial risk o f

se rio u s, im m e d iate , an d p ro x im a te harm ; ( 4) the r i s k w as obvi ous orknow n; ( 5) defe ndant s act ed re c k les slyin c o n sc io u s d isre g a rd o f th a t risk ; an d (6 ) su c h c o n d u c t, w h e n v ie w e d in to ta l, is c o n s c ie n c e s h o c k in g . C hrist i an sen v. C i t

y of Tuls a , 332 F. 3d 1270, 1281 ( 10th C i r . 2003) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . A s r efl ect ed bythi s s i x- partt es t , the dange r - cr eat i on theoryi s r es erved fo r e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m s ta n c e s . S e e R u iz v . McD o n n e ll , 299 F. 3d 1173, 1184 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). O rd in a ry n e g lig e n c e d o e s n o t s h o c k th e c o n s c ie n c e . Id . “R ather , a pl ai nt i ff mustdemonstr at e a de gr ee of outr ageous nes s and a magni tude of pot ent i al oractual harm thati s trul ycons ci ence s hocki ng. ” Id . ( quot at i on o m itte d ). T h e d istri ct co u rtco n clud ed that L t. P ase d id n o t violate M s. R h o ten’s s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s r i ght s beca us e ther e w as no caus al connec t i on betw een the acc i den tand his beh avior , he d i d n ot cr eat e a dan ger r esul t i ng i n h er i njur i es, and his beh aviordid not s ho ck the con sci ence. M s. R ho t en argu es that there i s a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tw hetherM r . D i cks on bel i eved thathe w as bei ng chased such thata causal conne ct i on exis t ed. T he b asi s for the argu m ent i s a r ecor ded s t at ementhe made t o hi s i ns ur ance adj us t er . A ppar ent l y , M s . R hot en- 9-

pl anned t o us e thi s s t at ement , w hi ch i s noti ncl uded i n the appe ndi ces of ei ther p a r ty, t o i n fe rt h a tM r . D i c k s o n b e l i e v e d , c o n tr a ry t o h i s d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y, thathe coul d have be en pur s ued orchas ed bys om eone w ho m i ghthave be en L t. P a se a n d th a t th e c h a sin g c o u ld h a v e in f lu e n c e d h is d riv in g , the re b yc a u sa lly connec t i ng hi m t o the ac ci dent . T he di s tr i ctcourtexcl uded the s t at ementas hear s ayunderFed. R . E vi d. 801( c) , beca us e i tw as offe r ed t o pr ove the truth of the mat t eras s ert ed. M s . R hot en ar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcourtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on b ye x c lu d in g th e sta tem e n t sin c e th e sta tem e n t w a s a d m iss ib le a g a in st a p a rt y -o p p o n e n t u n d e r F e d . R . E v id . 8 0 1 (d )( 2 )( A ). R ul e 801( d) ( 2) ( A ) pr ovi des thata s t at ementi s nothear s ayi f i t“i s offe r ed agai ns ta partyand i s . . . the party ’ s ow n s t at ement . ” M s . R hot en di d notoffe r M r . D i cks on’ s s t at ementas an admi s s i on agai ns thi m ; s he offer ed i tas an a d m iss io n a g a in st L t. P a se a n d th e C ityo f T o p e k a . T h u s, th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t a b u s e its d is c re tio n in e x c lu d in g th is in a d m is s ib le h e a rs a y . See Argo v . B l ue C r os s & Bl ue Shi eld of Kan. , Inc. , 452 F. 3d 1193, 1199 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( “W e r evi ew a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s evi dent i aryrul i ngs atthe s um m aryj udgm ents t age fo r a b u se o f

d isc re tio n .”). A n d w e th e re fo re d o n o t co n sid e r th is in a d m iss ib le s ta te m e n t w h e n re v ie w in g th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s o rd e r g ra n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. See G r os s v. B urggr af C ons tr . C o. , 5 3 F .3 d 1 5 3 1 , 1 5 4 1 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 5 ) (“ It is w e ll se ttl e d in th is c irc u it th a t w e c a n c o n sid e r o n lya d m iss ib le e v id e n c e in re v ie w in g a n o rd e r g ra n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t.” ).- 10-

B uteven a s s um i ng t he s t at ementw as admi s s i bl e, the di s tr i ctcourtdeci ded thati tfai l ed t o s uppor tM s . R hot en’ s pos i t i on, beca us e i tdi d nots how that M r . D i cks on knew he w as bei ng fol l ow ed byL t . Pas e. T he courtdeci ded thatt he stat em en t al o n g w ith M r. D icks o n ’s de p o sit ion test im o n yan d the o ther rec o rd evi dence di d notr ai s e a que s t i on of fa ctw hetherL t . Pas e’ s act i ons w er e a fact or i n caus i ng M s . R hot en’ s i nj ury . W e agr ee. Fi r s t , a s t at ementthati s noti ncl uded i n the appe ndi ces cannotbe a ba s i s fora det erm i nat i on thatther e i s a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t . Second, M r . D i cks on’ s s t at ementand depos i t i on t es t i m ony b o th in d ica te h e d id n o t b e liev e h e w a s b e in g c h a se d . In h is s tate m e n t, M r. D i ckson i nd i cat ed thathe saw a w hit e car–no ta dark b l ue car l i ke L t . P ase w a s d riv in g – m a k e a U -tu rn , m o v e fa st, a n d w e a v e in a n d o u t o f tra ffic, b u t h e d id notknow i f the ca rw as chas i ng hi m . A pl ee. Supp. A pp. , V ol . 1 at223- 24 (quoti ng M r. D i ckson ’s st at em ent t o insur ance a djust er i n M s. R ho t en’s r espon se t o the C i tyof Topeka’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent ) . H e di d notpaym uch a tte n tio n to th e c a r a n d d id n o t k n o w if a p ri v a te p e rs o n w a s tr a c k in g h im d o w n . Id . H e d id n o t th in k th e c a r w a s a p o lic e c a r. Id . a t2 3 5 - 3 6 . S i m i l a r l y, M r . D i cks on t es t i fi ed athi s depos i t i on thathe “w as neverunderthe i m pr es s i on [he] w as bei ng chas ed. ” Id . a t 8 6 ; i d. , V o l. II at 4 6 8 ; s ee i d. , V o l. I at 9 2 ; i d. , V ol . I I at471. N o one dr i vi ng behi nd hi m caus ed hi m t o change the mannerof h is d ri v in g . Id. , V o l. I at 9 8 ; i d. , V ol . I I at472. I ndeed, he onl yl earned that- 11-

L t. P a s e w a s c h a s in g h im a f te r t h e a c c id e n t. See i d. , V o l. I at 8 6 ; i d. , V o l. II a t 4 6 8 -6 9 . In a d d iti o n , co n tra ryto h e r a rg u m e n t, M s. R h o ten h a s a lleg e d n o fa c ts s how i ng aff

i r m at i ve conduc tbyL t . Pas e thatcr eat ed ori ncr eas ed dange rt o heror conductthats hocks the cons ci ence . “A ffi r m at i ve conduc tforpurpos es of § 1983 s houl d typi cal l yi nvol ve conduc tthati m pos es an i m m edi at e thr eatof harm , w hi ch b yits n a tu re h a s a lim ite d ra n g e a n d d u ra tio n . R u iz , 2 9 9 F .3 d a t 1 1 8 3 . M s . R hot en’ s cl ai m i s t hats he s uffe r ed i nj ur i es due t o L t . Pas e’ s fai l ur e t o tur n on hi s l i ght s and s i r en w hi l e pur s ui ng M r . D i cks on, w ho deni ed know i ng he w as bei ng pur s ued. L t . Pas e’ s conductther efor e di d noti m pos e an i m m edi at e thr eat of h arm t o M s. R ho t en, and she can no tpo i nt t o affi rm at i ve acti on s byL t . P ase thatcr eat ed ori ncr eas ed the dange rt o her . N orhas s he s how n anyoutr ageous c o n d u c t b yL t. P a s e th a t s h o c k s th e c o n s c ie n c e . M s. R ho t en als o argue s that To pek a po l i ce dep artm ent pol i cycreat es a p ra c tice o f

in ten tio n a l an d re c k les s c o n d u c t to u se p o lice v e h icle s to e n g a g e in hi gh s peed pur s ui tw i thoutact i vat i ng the s i r en orl i ght s , ther ebydeny i ng ot her r oadw ayus er s not i ce of an i m pendi ng danger . A ccor di ng t o M s . R hot en, that pol i cyal l ow ed Lt . Pas e t o s peed w i thoutact i vat i ng hi s l i ght s and s i r en and l at er denythathe w as engage d i n a pur s ui t . N othi ng i n the appe ndi ces i ndi cat es that M r . D i cks on bel i eved thatL t . Pas e w as pur s ui ng hi m . E ven i f pol i ce pol i cy i nfl uence d L t . Pas e’ s act i ons , M r . D i cks on w as s ol el yr es pons i bl e forthe- 12-

acc i dent , L t . Pas e di d noti nt end t o harm M s . R hot en, and Lt . Pas e’ s conductw as notcons ci ence s hocki ng. B eca us e M s . R hot en di d notr ai s e a ge nui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fac tthatL t . Pas e ca us ed the ac ci dent , cr eat ed a da nger , oract ed i n a cons ci ence - s hocki ng m anner , w e conc l ude thatthe di s tr i ctcourtpr oper l ygr ant ed s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to L t. P a s e . T he di s tr i ctcourtal s o pr oper l ygr ant ed the C i tyof Topeka’ s m ot i on for s um m aryj udgm ent . “A m uni ci pal i tym aynotbe hel d l i abl e w her e ther e w as no under l y i ng cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on byanyof i t s offi cer s . ” C am ugl i a v. C i t y of A l buquer que , 4 4 8 F .3 d 1 2 1 4 , 1 2 2 3 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). W e A F F IR M th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d istric t co u rt.

E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

W ade Brorby Seni orC i r cui tJ udge