FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT APRIL20, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 03- 15094

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 01 -001 48 -C V -W B H -3 V I C T O R H A R R I S , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s C O W E T A C O U N T Y , G E O R G I A , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts , M A R K F E N N I N G E R , S g t., T I M O T H Y C . S C O T T , D e p u ty , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lla n ts .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( A pr i l 20, 2005) B efo re B IR C H , B A R K E T T an d C O X , C i rcu i tJu d g es.2

B A R K E T T , C i rc ui tJudg e: C o w e ta C o u n ty D e p u ty T im o th y S c o tt ( “S c o tt” ) a n d C o w e ta C o u n ty S er geantM ark F enni ng er(“ F enni ng er ”) appeal fr om the deni al of sum m ary j udgm e nton the i rc l a i m s of qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty on V i c t orH a r r i s ’ ( “ H a r r i s ” ) 42 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n b a s e d o n H a r r is ’ a lle g a tio n s th a t S c o tt v io la te d h is F o u r th A m endm entri gh t s by usi ng exce ss i ve forc e duri ng a hi gh -s peed carchas e, and t hat F enni ng ervi ol at ed hi s F ou rth A m endm entri gh t s by autho ri zi ng thatuse of f orce . I . B AC KG RO UN D V ie w e d in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r a b le to th e n o n - m o v a n t, H a r r is , th e f a c ts pert ai ni ng t o the chas e thatcovered approximat el y ni ne m i l es and l as t ed approx i m at el y s i x m i nu t es ar e a s f ol l ow s. B etw ee n 1 0: 30 and 1 1: 00 pm on M ar ch 2 9 , 2 0 0 1 , a C o w e ta C o u n ty d e p u ty c lo c k e d H a r r is ’ v e h ic le a t 7 3 m ile s p e rh o u rin a 5 5 m ile - p e r - h o u rz o n e . T h e v e h ic le th a t H a r r is w a s d r iv in g w a s r e g is te r e d in H arri s’ n am e an d ath i s p ro p er ad d ress. A l th o u g h th e d ep u ty fl ash ed h i s b l u e l i g h t s, H a r r is c o n tin u e d d r iv in g . T h e d e p u ty p u r s u e d , a n d in a tte m p tin g to f le e , H a r r is drov e i n exces s of the spee d l i m i t , atspee ds betw ee n 7 0 and 90 m i l es per hou r, pass ed vehi cl es on do ub l e y el l ow tra ff i c c on trol l anes , and ran throu gh tw o red l i ght s . H a r r i s s t a y e d i n c ontr ol of hi s ve hi c l e , ut i l i z i ng hi s bl i nke r s w hi l e pa s s i ng o rm a k in g tu r n in g m o v e m e n ts .Scott disput es this version of events. For purposes of summar

y judgment, we ac cept 1 Har ris’ ver sion. 3 A f t e rH a r r i s r e f

us e d t o s t op, the de puty r a di oe d di s pa t c h a nd r e por t e d tha the w a s pur s ui ng a f

l e e i ng ve hi c l e , a nd br oa dc a s ti t s l i c e ns e pl a t e num be r . H e di d not r e la y th a t th e u n d e r ly in g c h a r g e w a s s p e e d in g . S c o tt h e a r d th e r a d io c o m m u n ic a tio n a n d jo in e d th e p u r s u it, a s it p r o c e e d e d to w a r d th e c o u n ty lin e in to F a y e tte C o u n ty , G e o r g ia . A f t e rc r os s i ng i nt o P e a c htr e e C i ty i n F a y e tt e C ounty , H a r r i s s l ow e d dow n, a c t i va t e d hi s bl i nke r , a nd tur ne d i nt o a drugs t or e pa r ki ng l otl oc a t e d i n a s hoppi ng c o m p le x , w h e r e tw o P e a c h tr e e C ity p o lic e v e h ic le s w e r e a lr e a d y s ta tio n e d . S c o tt p r o c e e d e d a r o u n d th e o p p o s ite s id e o f th e c o m p le x in a n a tte m p t to p r e v e n t H a r r is f r o m le a v in g th e p a r k in g lo t a n d g e ttin g o n to H ig h w a y 7 4 , d r iv in g h is v e h ic le di r e c t l y i nt o H a r r i s ’ pa th. H a r r i s a tt e m pt e d t o tur n t o the l e f tt o a voi d hi tt i ng S c ott ’ s c a r , butthe tw o ve hi c l e s c a m e i n c ont a c tw i th e a c h othe r , c aus i ng m i nor dam age t o S cott ’ s c rui se r. H arri s then ent er ed H i gh w ay 74 and con t i nu ed t o fl ee 1 s o u th w a r d a t a h ig h s p e e d . T h r o u g h P e a c h tr e e C ity , S c o tt to o k o v e ra s th e le a d v e h ic le in th e c h a s e . A f te rg e ttin g o n H ig h w a y 7 4 , S c o tt r a d io e d a g e n e r a l r e q u e s t f o r“P e r m is s io n to P I T hi m . ” A “ P I T ” ( “ P r e c i s i on I nt e r ve nt i on T e c hni que ” ) m a ne uve ri s a dr i vi ng t e c hni que de s i gne d t o s t op a f l e e i ng m ot or i s ts a f

e l y a nd qui c kl y by hi tt i ng theAt thetim eof

thec ha se , th eCow e ta

County Sheri ff ’sDepa rtment h a d a

vehic lepurs uit 2 policy , which stated that “[d] eliberate physical contact betwe en vehic les at any time may be justified to terminate the pursuit upon the a pproval of thesupervisor.”R. 48, Ex . 11, at 93. 4 f l e e i ng c a ra ta s pe c i f

i c poi nton the ve hi c l e , w hi c h thr ow s the c a ri nt o a s pi n a nd br i ngs i tt o a s t op. H a r r i s ’ e xpe r t ’ s r e por ta tt e s t s tha t“ na t i ona l l a w e nf or c e m e nt 2 s t a nda r ds r e qui r e tha n [ s i c ] a n of f i c e rbe tr a i ne d i n a l l de a dl y f or c e appl i c a t i ons be f or e be i ng pe r m i tt e d t o us e thos e appl i c a t i ons . ” R . 24, a t9- 10. S c ottha d not be e n tr a i ne d i n e xe c ut i ng thi s m a ne uve r . H e a nd the othe rC ow e t a of f i c e r s di d not u n d e r g o a tr a in in g o n P I T s u n til a f te rth e in c id e n t. F e nni nge rw a s the s upe r vi s orw ho r e s ponde d t o S c ott ’ s r a di o c a l l a nd gr a nt e d S c ottpe r m i s s i on t o e m pl oy the P I T , t e l l i ng hi m t o: “ G o a he a d a nd t a ke hi m out . T a ke hi m out . ” F e nni nge r– w ho tune d i nt o the tr a ns m i s s i ons a boutthe p u rsu i tl at e – d i d n o tk n o w h o w th e p u rsu i to ri g i n at ed , th e sp eed s o f th e v eh i cl es, th e n u m b e r s o f

m o to r is ts o rp e d e s tr ia n s o n th e r o a d w a y s , o rh o w d a n g e r o u s ly H a r r is w a s d r iv in g . F e n n in g e ra ls o d id n o t r e q u e s t f u r th e rd e ta ils a b o u t th e p u r s u it p r io rto a u th o r iz in g th e P I T . A ft erre ce i vi ng approv al , S cottdet erm i ned t hathe coul d n otperf orm the P IT m aneuver because he w as go i ng t oo fa st . Inst ea d, ho w ever , he ra m m ed hi s c rui se r di r e c t l y i nt o H a r r i s ’ ve hi c l e , c a us i ng H a r r i s t o l os e c ontr ol , l e a ve the r oa dw a y , run d o w n a n e m b a n k m e n t, a n d c r a s h . A s a r e s u lt, H a r r is w a s r e n d e r e d a q u a d r ip le g ic .We rejec t Harris’ first argument that we a re w ithout jurisdi ction over this interlocutory 3 appeal. This appeal g oes beyond the evidentiar y sufficiency

of the district cour

t’s decision. 5 I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW W e r e vi e w the de ni a l of s um m a r y j udgm e ntde novo . C a gl e v. S uthe r l a nd, 3 3 4 F. 3 d 9 8 0 , 9 8 5 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) . I n c o n d u c t i n g o u rr e v i e w , w e ap p l y th e s a me l e ga l s t a nda r ds a s the di s tr i c tc our t . V a ugha n v. C ox, 343 F . 3d 1323, 1328 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . T hus , w e vi e w the f a c t s i n the l i ghtm os tf

a vor a bl e t o the non- m ovi ng p a r ty , a n d d r a w a ll r e a s o n a b le in f e r e n c e s in h is f

a v o r . I d . S u m m a r y ju d g m e n t is notappr opr i a t e unl e s s the e vi de nc e de m ons tr a t e s tha t“ the r e i s no ge nui ne i s s ue of m a te r ia l f

a c t a n d th a t th e m o v in g p a r ty is e n title d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte ro f la w .” F e d . R . C iv .P . 5 6 ( c ) . A d e f e n d a n t’s e n title m e n t to q u a lif ie d im m u n ity is a q u e s tio n o f la w , a ls o to b e r e v ie w e d d e n o v o . C a g le , 3 3 4 F .3 d a t 9 8 5 . I I I . DI S CUS S I ON 3 A s w e ha ve of

t e n s t a t e d, “ [ q] ua l i f

i e d i m m uni ty of

f e r s c om pl e t e pr ot e c t i on for gov ernm entoffi ci al s s ued i n thei r i nd i vi du al capaci t i es as l on g as thei r c on du ct vi ol a t e s no c l e a r l y e s t a bl i s he d s t a tut or y orc ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s of w hi c h a r e a s ona bl e pe r s on w oul d ha ve know n. ” L e e v. F e r r a r o, 284 F . 3d 1188, 1193- 94 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( in te r n a l c ita tio n s a n d q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itte d ) . T h is im m u n ity6

“ a l l ow [ s ] gove r nm e ntof f i c i a l s t o c a r r y outthe i rdi s c r e t i ona r y dut i e s w i thoutthe f e a rof pe r s ona l l i a bi l i ty orha r a s s i ng l i t i ga t i on[ . ] ” I d. ( c i t i ng A nde r s on v. C r e i ght on, 483 U . S . 635, 638 ( 1987) ) . T hus , i n or de rt o r e c e i ve i t s pr ot e c t i ons , the g o v e r n m e n t o f

f ic ia l m u s t f

ir s t p r o v e th a t h e w a s a c tin g w ith in th e s c o p e o f h is di s c r e t i ona r y a uthor i ty w he n the a l l e ge dl y w r ongf ul a c t s oc c ur r e d. K e s i nge rv. H e r r i ngt on, 381 F . 3d 1243, 1248 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( c i t i ng V i ny a r d v. W i l s on, 311 F .3 d 1 3 4 0 , 1 3 4 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ) . I n th is c a s e , th e r e is n o d is p u te th a t w h e n S c o tt r a m m e d H a r r is ’ v e h ic le d u r in g th e h ig h - s p e e d p u r s u it o n M a r c h 2 9 , 2 0 0 1 , h e d id so as p ar t o f h is d iscr etio n ar y f u n ctio n s a s d ep u ty o f th e C o w eta C o u n ty S h er iff’s D ep ar tm en t (C C S D ). It is li k ew ise c lear(a n d u n co n tested ) th at F en n in g er ’s a u th o r iz a tio n o f

S c o tt’s u s e o f

a P I T m a n e u v e rw a s a d e c is io n m a d e in h is c ap a c ity a s s u p e r v i s o rt o S c o tta n d s e r g e a n to f th e C C S D. T h e d efen d an t s h av i n g est ab l i sh ed th ei r el i g i b i l i ty fo r q u al i fi ed i m m u n i ty, the bur de n the n s hi f

t s t o the pl a i nt i f

f t o s how tha tqua l i f

i e d i m m uni ty i s not ap p ro p ri at e. L ee, 2 8 4 F . 3 d at1 1 9 4 . T h i s n ex tst ep co n si st s o f a tw o -p arti n q u i ry, s e t f o r th in S a uc i e rv. K a t z , 533 U . S . 194, 201 ( 2001) . F i r s tw e a s k, “ [ t ] a ke n i n the l i ghtm os tf

a vor a bl e t o the pa r ty a s s e r t i ng the i nj ur y , do the f a c t s a l l e ge d s how the o ff icer ’s co n d u ct v io lated a c o n stitu ti o n al rig h t? ” I d . If, as su m in g th e p lain ti ff’s a lle g a tio n s w e r e tru e , n o s u c h r ig h t w o u ld h a v e b e e n v io la te d , th e a n a ly s is is7

co m p lete. H o w ev er , i f a co n stitu ti o n al v io lati o n ca n b e m ad e o u t o n th e p lain ti ff’s fa ct s, w e then m ustdet erm i ne “ w hether, atthe t i m e of the i nci dent , every obj e c t i ve l y r e a s onabl e pol i c e of f i c e rw oul d ha ve r e a l i z e d the a c t s vi ol a t e d a l r e a dy c l e a r l y e s t a bl i s he d f

e de r a l l a w . ” G a r r e ttv. A the ns - C l a r ke C ounty , 378 F . 3d 1274, 1 2 7 8 -7 9 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) (ci t i n g S au ci er, 5 3 3 U . S . at2 0 1 -0 2 ). W e ad d ress th ese que s t i ons i n tur n. A. D id

Sc o tt a nd Fe nning e rV

io la te H a r r is ’Co ns titutio na l

Ri g ht To Be Fre e From A n U

n re ason ab le S ei

zu re ? H arri s a l l eges thatS cottvi ol at ed hi s F ou rth A m endm entri gh tt o b e “ fr ee fr om the use of e xces si ve force i n the course of an i nv es t i gat ory s t op or ot her

‘ se i zure ’ of the pers on . ” K es i ng er , 38 1 F . 3d at12 48 (c i t i ng G ra ham v. C on no r, 490 U . S . 386 ( 1989) ) . T o e s t a bl i s h a n e xc e s s i ve f or c e c l a i m , H a r r i s m us ts how f ir s t th a t h e w a s s u b

je c te d to a “s e iz u r e ” w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th e F o u r th A m e ndm e nt . V a ugha n, 343 F . 3d a t1328. T he di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed, and S cottdo es no tcont es t , thatH arri s w as s e i z e d by S c ottw he n the l a tt e rr a m m e d hi s ve hi c l e , c a us i ng hi m t o l os e c ontr ol a nd c r a s h. P ur s ua ntt o B r ow e rv. C ounty of I ny o, 489 U . S . 593, 596- 99 ( 1989) , us i ng a v e h i c l e t o s t o p a n d ap p r e h e n d a s u s p e c ti s a s e i z u r e . I n Br o w e r , th e Su p r e me C our the l d tha ta f

l e e i ng s us pe c tw ho f

a t a l l y c r a s he d i nt o a s o- c a l l e d “ de a dm a n”A deadman or “blind” roadbloc k is an obstacle (usually a police c ar or

truck) placed on 4 the road in a manner

that prevents an oncomingdriver who is beingpursued by the police f

rom knowingthe road is blocked. Th is c ourt

he ld in A dams v . St . L

uc ieCounty

Sheri ff ’sDept. , 9 98 F .2 d 9 23 , 9 23 (1 1th 5 Cir . 1 99 3) (en b anc ) t

hat as of 1985(bef

ore B rower), it was not “ clea rly established” that striking a car duringa police chase c onstitut ed a se izure. That ca se wa s also decide d before Sa uc ier a nd did no t de c idethefirs t qu e sti on whic h mu st b eans were d in a qu alif ie d immunity casepursuant to Saucier : whether a constitutional right had been violated. See Ada ms, 962 F.2d at 1577-78 (“ To resolvethe question of qualifie d immunity , we ne ed not dec ide today whether the Four th Amendment was violate d.”) 8 r oa dbl oc k dur i ng a hi gh- s pe e d c ha s e ha d be e n “ s e i z e d” by the pol i c e w ho s e tup

4 the r oa dbl oc k. T he C our tde f i ne d a s e i z ur e a s “ a gove r nm e nt a l t e r m i na t i on of 5 fr ee do m of m ov em entthrou gh m ea ns i nt ent i on al l y app l i ed. ” B row er , 48 9 U . S . at 59 7 (em ph as i s om i tt ed). T he C ou rtre as on ed that“ i t[i s] enou gh for ase i zure that a p e r s o n b e s to p p e d b y th e v e r y in s tru m e n ta lity s e t in m o tio n o rp u t in p la c e in order t o achi eve thatre sul t. . . B row erw as m ea ntt o b e s t op ped b y the ph ys i ca l ob st ac l e of the roadbl ock – and . . . w as so st op ped. ” I d. at59 9. T he C ou rtno t ed th a t if “th e p o lic e c ru is e rh a d p u lle d a lo n g s id e th e f le e in g c a ra n d s id e s w ip e d it, pr oduc i ng the c r a s h, the n the t e r m i na t i on of the s us pe c t ’ s f

r e e dom of

m ove m e nt w oul d ha ve be e n a s e i z ur e . ” I d. , 489 U . S . a t597. S e e a l s o H e r na nde z v. J a r m a n, 34 0 F . 3d 61 7, 62 3 (8th C i r. 20 03 ) ( “ A s w e have hel d, a F ou rth A m endm entse i zure oc c ur s a s a r e s ul tof

a c a rc ol l i s i on onl y w he r e the pol i c e of f i c e ri nt e nde d the c ol l i s i on t o be the r e s ul t . ” ) ; D onova n v. C i ty of M i l w a uke e , 17 F . 3d 944, 949 ( 7th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ( f

in d in g a F o u r th A m e n d m e n t “s e iz u r e ” w h e r e o f f ic e rin te n tio n a llyIn applying thetest, we must take “the per spective of a re asonableofficer on the scene, 6 rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Graha m v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396-97 (1 98 9) . There a so na

blene ss inq

uir y is a n o bje c tiv eon e : “ thequ e sti on is whe ther t

heof fi c e rs ’ a c tio ns are“ ob

je c tiv e ly re a so na ble ”in l ight o f t

hefac ts a nd c irc ums tanc e s c on frontingthem, without reg ard to their underlying intent or motivation.” I d. at 397. 9 ba c ke d up s qua d c a ri nt o the pa th of a f l e e i ng m ot or c y c l e a nd pr ovoke d c ol l i s i on, s e n d in g b o th d r iv e ra n d p a s s e n g e ra irb o r n e ) . H a vi ng de t e r m i ne d tha tH a r r i s w a s s e i z e d, w e tur n t o the que s t i on of w he the rthe f

or c e us e d by S c ottt o e f f e c tua t e the s e i z ur e w a s r e a s ona bl e , i n l i ghtof the f a c t s a c c or di ng t o H a r r i s . I n T e nne s s e e v. G a r ne r , 471 U . S . 1, 8 ( 1985) , the 6 S upr e m e C our tm a de c l e a rtha tthe r e a s ona bl e ne s s of a s e i z ur e “ de pe nds on not o n ly w h e n a s e iz u r e is m a d e , b u t a ls o h o w it is c a r r ie d o u t.” I n G a rn e r , a s in th is c a s e , the C our tc ons i de r e d a s ui tf orda m a ge s unde r42 U . S . C . § 1983 on the gr ounds tha tthe m a nne rof the s e i z ur e vi ol a t e d G a r ne r ’ s c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s . T he p o lic e a r g u e d th a t b e c a u s e G a r n e rw a s a f le e in g f e lo n , a n y f

o r c e n e c e s s a r y to capture hi m w as perm i ss i bl e. T he S up re m e C ou rthel d thatthe use of deadl y f orce m a y notbe us e d t o s e i z e a f l e e i ng f e l on “ unl e s s i ti s ne c e s s a r y t o pr e ve ntthe es cape a nd th e o ffi cer h as p ro b ab l e cau se t o b el i ev e th atth e su sp ectp o ses a si gn i fi ca ntthrea tof death o r s er i ou s physi ca l i nj ury t o the offi ce r or others . ” I d. at 3 ( e m p h a s is s u p p lie d ) . T h e C o u r t c o n c lu d e d th a t: [t ] h e u se o f d ead l y fo rce t o p rev en tth e escap e o f al l fel o n y su sp ect s, w ha t e ve rthe c i r c um s t a nc e s , i s c ons t i tut i ona l l y unr e a s ona bl e . I ti s notIn Pruitt we also looked to the Alabama Code, which de fined “ deadly forc e” a s “[f]orce 7 which, under

the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capa ble of c ausingdeath or

serious physical injury .” 771 F .2d at 1479 n. 10. 10 be tt e rtha ta l l f

e l ony s us pe c t s di e tha n tha tthe y e s c ape . W he r e the s u s p e c t p o s e s n o im m e d ia te th r e a t to th e o f f ic e ra n d n o th r e a t to othe r s , the ha r m r e s ul t i ng f r om f a i l i ng t o appr e he nd hi m doe s not ju s tif y th e u s e o f

d e a d ly f o r c e to d o s o . I t is n o d o u b t u n f o r tu n a te w hen a suspec tw ho i s i n si gh tes capes, bu tthe fa ctthatthe po l i ce arri ve a l i tt l e l at e or a re a l i tt l e s l ow eraf oo tdo es no tal w ay s j ust i fy ki l l i ng the s us pe c t . A pol i c e of f i c e rm a y nots e i z e a n una r m e d, n o n d a n g e r o u s s u s p e c t b y s h o o tin g h im d e a d . I d . a t 1 1 . T he C our tr e c ogni z e d tha tl i m i t e d c i r c um s t a nc e s m i ghtj us t i f y the us e of de a dl y f or c e , t o w i t : ( 1) “ [ w ] he r e the of f i c e rha s pr oba bl e c a us e t o be l i e ve tha tthe s u s p e c t p o s e s a th r e a t o f s e r io u s p h y s ic a l h a r m , e ith e rto th e o f f ic e ro rto o th e r s ,” o r“if th e s u s p e c t th r e a te n s th e o f f ic e rw ith a w e ap o n o rth e r e is p r o b a b le c a u s e to bel i eve thathe had com m i tt ed a c ri m e i nv ol vi ng the i nfl i ct i on or threa t ened i nfl i ct i on of se ri ou s physi ca l harm , ” a nd ( 2 ) if d e a d ly f o r c e is “n e c e s s a r y to preventes cape, ” a nd , ( 3) “ i f , w he r e f e a s i bl e , s om e w a r ni ng ha s be e n gi ve n. ” I d. 4 7 1 U .S . a t 1 1 - 1 2 . S e e a ls o V a u g h a n , 3 4 3 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 9 - 3 0 . W ith o u t m e e tin g a ll o f th e s e c o n d itio n s , th e u s e o f d e a d ly f o r c e is c o n s titu tio n a lly u n r e a s o n a b le .

“ D e a dl y f

or c e ” i s f or c e tha tc r e a t e s “ a s ubs t a nt i a l r i s k of c a us i ng de a th or s e r i ous bodi l y i nj ur y . ” P rui ttv. C i ty of M ont gom e r y , 771 F . 2d 1475, 1479 n. 10 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) ( c itin g M o d e l P e n a l C o d e ( M P C ) § 3 .1 1 ( 2 ) ( 1 9 6 2 ) ) . T h e C o w e ta 711

C ounty S he r i f

f D e pa r tm e nt ’ s U s e of

F or c e P ol i c y pr ovi de s a n a na l ogous de f i ni t i on – “ [ f ] or c e w hi c h, unde rthe c i r c um s t a nc e s i n w hi c h i ti s us e d, i s r e a di l y c apa bl e of c a us i ng de a th orothe rs e r i ous i nj ur y . ” R . 48 a tE x. 12, a t82. I n P rui tt , w e f ound tha ts hoot i ng a s us pe c ti n the l e gs t o s t op hi m w a s a “ us e of de a dl y f or c e ” i n the c o n s titu tio n a l s e n s e , e v e n th o u g h th e o f f ic e rd id n o t n e c e s s a r ily s h o o t to k ill. W e r e a s o n e d th a t th e M P C a n d A la b a m a C o d e d e f in itio n s o f

d e a d ly f o r c e “c le a r ly e n c o m p a s s [ e d ]” th e f

o r c e u s e d in th a t c a s e b e c a u s e “[ th e o f f ic e r ], a t th e le a s t, purpos e l y f

i r e d hi s s hot s a tP rui tt ’ s l e gs , a nd i n doi ng s o us e d f or c e c apa bl e of c a us i ng s e r i ous phy s i c a l i nj ur y . ” 771 F . 2d a t1479 n. 10. L ik e o th e rin s tru m e n ta litie s , th e u s e o f a n a u to m o b ile c a n n o t b e c o n s tru e d in e ve r y c i r c um s t a nc e a s de a dl y f or c e . H ow e ve r , a n a ut om obi l e , l i ke a gun, c a n be us e d de l i be r a t e l y t o c a us e de a th ors e r i ous bodi l y i nj ur y . S e e P a c e v. C apobi a nc o, 2 8 3 F .3 d 1 2 7 5 , 1 2 8 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( s u s p e c t “u s e d th e a u to m o b ile in a m a n n e rto g iv e r e a s o n a b le p o lic e m e n p r o b a b le c a u s e to b e lie v e th a t it h a d b e c o m e a d e a d ly w e apon w i th w hi c h [ s us pe c t ] w a s a r m e d” ) ; U . S . v. G ua l da do, 794 F . 2d 1533, 15 35 (11t h C i r. 19 86 ) ( “ A l m ostany obj ec tw hi ch as used or att em pt ed t o b e use d m a y e n d a n g e rlif

e o rin f lic t g r e a t b o d ily h a r m , o rw h ic h is lik e ly to p r o d u c e d e a th o rg r e a t b o d ily in

ju r y , c a n in s o m e c ir c u m s ta n c e s b e a ‘d a n g e r o u s w e ap o n .’ . . . An a u t o m o b i l e h a s b e e n h e l d t o c o n s t i tu t e a d e a d l y we ap o n wh e n u s e d t o ru n d o wnS ee al s o S co tt ’s De p o . , R . 4 8 at1 5 7 -5 8 , (t es t i fyi n g th atramm i n g Harri s ’ v eh i cl e ath i gh 8 speeds c onstitut ed a useof deadly forc e under

the CCSD Deadly

Force Policy

); Fenninger’s 12 a l aw enforce m entoffi ce r. L i kew i se , i n thi s i nst ance appel l ant s’ bo at , used i n an a tt e m ptt o r a m the ve s s e l of C us t om s of

f i c i a l s , a l s o c oul d pr ope r l y be c ons i de r e d a de a dl y w e apon. ” ) ( i nt e r na l c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . S e e a l s o H e r na nde z , 340 F . 3d a t624 ( of f i c e rha d pr oba bl e c a us e t o s hoots us pe c tw he r e s us pe c t“ pos e d a n i m m i ne nt th reato f seri o u s p h ysi cal h arm t o h i m sel f an d t o o th ers as ev i d en ced b y [su sp ect ’ s] dr i vi ng he a d- on i nt o [ the of f i c e r ’ s ] ve hi c l e ” ) ; L udw i g v. A nde r s on, 54 F . 3d 465, 473 ( 8th C i r . 1995) ( a n a tt e m ptt o hi ta n i ndi vi dua l ( noti n ave hi c l e ) w i th a m ovi ng s qua d c a r“ i s a n a tt e m ptt o appr e he nd by us e of de a dl y f or c e ” ) ; D onova n, 17 F . 3d at94 9-50 (bac ki ng up of a s qu ad ca r i nt o p ath o f afl ee i ng m ot orcy cl e w as an appl i c a t i on of

de a dl y f or c e ) ; S m i th v. F r e l a nd, 954 F . 2d 343, 347 ( 6th C i r . 1992) ( c i t i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S a nc he z , 914 F . 2d 1355 ( 9th C i r . 1990) ) ( “ e ve n una r m e d, [ the pl a i nt i f

f ] w a s notha r m l e s s ; a c a rc a n be ade a dl y w e apon. ” ) . C f . B r ow e rv. C ounty of

I ny o, 884 F . 2d 1316, 1317- 18 ( 9th C i r . 1989) ( a s s um i ng w i thout deci di ng thatdeadm an roadbl ock t o st op a f l ee i ng vehi cl e duri ng a hi gh -s peed c h a s e w a s a n ap p lic a tio n o f “d e a d ly f

o r c e ” a n d ap p ly in g G a r n e ra n a ly s is ) . U nd eran obj ec t i ve vi ew of the fa ct s of thi s c as e, there i s l i tt l e di sput e that the ra m m i ng of H arri s’ ca r c ou l d con st i tut e ause of “ deadl y f orce ” a nd thata j ury c o u l d s o r e a s o n a b l y c o n c l u d e . Se e A n d e r s o n v . Li b e r ty Lo b b y , I n c . , 4 7 7 U . S. 8Depo., R. 50 at 62-63 (testifying that he g ave a uthorization t o make c ontact with the understandingthat he wa s authorizing the useof deadly forc e). Seealso testimony of other Cow e ta County and Pe a c htre eCity

of fi c e rs statingthat th e y

c on side re d th at ramminga vehic le at 90 mph could constitute a use of “deadly forc e.” Rey

nold’s Depo., R.49 at 118-119; Ye ag er Depo., R. 54 at 59; Kinsey Depo., R. 51 at 44; Erc ole Depo., R. 47 at 37-40.

13 24 2, 25 2 (19 86 ) ( “ T he j ud ge’ s i nq ui ry [a tthe sum m ary j ud gm entst age] , there fore , una voi da bl y a s ks w he the rr e a s ona bl e j ur or s c oul d f i nd by a pr e ponde r a nc e of the evi dence thatthe pl ai nt i ff i s e nt i t l ed t o a verdi ct . ”) . M oreover, no ne of the l i m i t ed ci rc um st ance s i dent i fi ed i n G arner thatm i gh tre nd erthi s use of deadl y f orce const i tut i on al ar e pre se nthere . S cottdi d n othave prob abl e c ause t o b el i eve that H a r r i s ha d c om m i tt e d a c r i m e i nvol vi ng the i nf l i c t i on orthr e a t e ne d i nf l i c t i on of se ri ou s physi ca l harm , no r di d H arri s, pri or t o the chas e, po se an i m m i nentthrea t o f s e r io u s p h y s ic a l h a r m to S c o tt o ro th e r s . N o n e o f th e a n te c e d e n t c o n d itio n s f o rth e u s e o f

d e a d ly f o r c e e x is te d in th is c a s e . H a r r i s ’ i nf

r a c t i on w a s s pe e di ng ( 73 m ph i n a 55 m ph z one ) . T he r e w e r e no w a r r a n t s o u tf

o rh i s a r r e s tf

o ra n y th i n g , mu c h l e s s f o rth e r e q u i s i t e “ c r i me i nv ol vi ng the i nfl i ct i on or threa t ened i nfl i ct i on of se ri ou s physi ca l harm . ” G arner, 4 7 1 U .S . a t 1 1 - 1 2 . I n d e e d , n e ith e rS c o tt n o rF e n n in g e rh a d a n y id e a w h y H a r r is w as bei ng pu rs ued. T he use of deadl y f orce i s not“ re as on abl e” i n a hi gh -s peed c ha s e ba s e d onl y on s pe e di ng a nd e va di ng a r r e s t . V a ugha n, 343 F . 3d a t1330. T he G arner C ou rtspec i fi ca l l y r ec og ni ze d thati tw ou l d b e a n ano m al y t o tra nsformAs rec ognized in Vaughan: 9 Under

Gar ner, a police officer can use deadly forc e to prevent the esca pe of a flee ing non-violent felony

suspect only

when the suspe ct poses an i mm ed i ate thre at of serious har

m to police officers or others. In this case, the da ng er presente d by

[the suspects’] continued flight was the risk of an acc ident duringthe pursuit. Applying Gar ner in a common-sen s e wa

y, a re asonableofficer would haveknown that [ramming a c ar when both automobiles were] travelingat app ro x imately 80 miles pe r h o ur . . . w o u ld tran s f o r m th e ris k o f an a c c ide nt o n th e h ighw ay into a virtual cer tainty .” 343 F.3d at 1332-33. We rec ognize that whether or not Harris would have e scape d has no bea ringon the 10 excessive forc e analysis, as Garner spec ifically based its holding on theassumption that a flee ing suspect would esc ape. 471 U .S. at 11. We note, however , as did the district court, that there were oth e r m e ans to t

rac k H arris down a s th epurs uingof fi c e rs had a

de sc ripti on

of thevehic lea s w e ll a s th elic e ns eplatenumber. We alsono tethat a bs olute ly no wa rningwa s g iven th at Sc ott intended to use de adly

forc e. 14 “e v e r y f le e in g m is d e m e a n a n t in to a f le e in g f e lo n . . . s o le ly b y v ir tu e o f h is f lig h t.” 4 7 1 U .S . a t 1 0 n .9 . A h ig h - s p e e d c h a s e o f a s u s p e c t f

le e in g a f te ra tr a f f ic 9 i nfra ct i on do es no tam ou ntt o the “ subst ant i al threa t ” of i m m i nentph ys i ca l harm th at G ar n erre q u ires b ef o re d ea d ly fo rc e c an b e u se d . G ar n erm ad e c learth at “[i] t i s notbe tt e rtha ta l l . . . s us pe c t s di e tha n tha tthe y e s c ape . ” 471 U . S . a t11. 10 W e r e j e c tthe de f

e nda nt s ’ a r gum e nttha tH a r r i s ’ dr i vi ng m us t , a s a m a tt e rof l aw , be consi dere d suffi ci ent l y r ec kl es s t o g i ve S cottprob abl e c ause t o b el i eve that he pos e d a s ubs t a nt i a l thr e a tof i m m i ne ntphy s i c a l ha r m t o m ot or i s t s a nd pe de s tr i a ns . T hi s i s a di s put e d i s s ue t o be r e s ol ve d by a j ur y . A s not e d by the d is tr ic t c o u r t ju d g e , ta k in g th e f a c ts f r o m th e n o n - m o v a n t’s v ie w p o in t, H a r r is r e m a in e d in c o n tr o l o f

h is v e h ic le , s lo w e d f

o rtu r n s a n d in te r s e c tio n s , a n d ty p ic a llyNor doe s the evidenc e show that Scott or the other officers were in immediate dang er or 11 thre atene d w ithimm inent h arm . A c c eptingHa rris’ vers ion

of e vents , H arris did n ot attempt to ra m, r un ov e r, side -s wipe , o r s werv einto a ny of theof fi c e rs (which mi ght h aveput th e ir liv e s in dang er in the pa

rkinglot), nor did he attempt any such conduc t once hewas back on the highway imm e diate ly

be fo rethese izure . Cf

. H e rn and e z, 3 40 F .3 d at 62 3 ( e vide nc eof plaintif f’ s attempt s to intentionally

drive his ca

r direc tly into officer ’s vehiclesupported findingthat officer’s use of de a dly fo rc ewa s re a so na

ble ); Smith v . F re land , 9 54 F .2 d. 34 3, 34 7 ( 6 Cir . 1 99 2) (u seof de a dly th forc e not unre asonablewhere suspec t “posed a major threat” to officers manningroadbloc k by drivingdire c tly

into th e m on

a re side nti al de a d- e nd

stre e t and

“ had p ro ven h ewo uld

do almo st 15 used hi s i nd i ca t ors f

or turns. H e di d n otrun any m ot ori st s of the road. C f. P ac e, 28 3 F . 3d at12 82 (off

i ce r had prob abl e c ause t o b el i eve thatca r had becom e a de a dl y w e apon w i th w hi c h de f e nda ntw a s a r m e d w he r e s us pe c tdr ove thr ough r e s id e n tia l n e ig h b o r h o o d a t 5 0 to 6 0 m p h , s w e r v e d a t o n c o m in g p o lic e c a r s , n e a r ly hi tel derl y m ot ori sthead-on w hen d ri vi ng on w rong si de of road, and acce l er at ed t ow ar ds po l i ce ca r r oadb l ock forci ng offi ce r off of the road t o avo i d col l i si on ); C ol e v. B on e, 99 3 F . 2d 13 28 , 13 31 -133 4 (8 C i r. 19 93 ) ( deadl y f orce w as th re as on abl e t o st op hi gh -s peed chase w here truck force d m ore than o ne hu nd re d ca rs off the road or ou tof the truck’ s w ay and end angered the l i ves of m any other m ot or i s t s dur i ng the pur s ui t , c ha s e l a s t e d 50 m i l e s , a nd of f i c e r s a tt e m pt e d t o s l ow the ve hi c l e us i ng s e ve r a l ty pe s of r oa dbl oc ks ) . N orw a s he a thr e a tt o pe de s tr i a ns i n the shop pi ng ce nt erparki ng l ot , w hi ch w as fr ee fr om pedestri an and v ehi cul ar tr a f f i c a s the c e nt e rw a s c l os e d. S i gni f i c a nt l y , by the t i m e the pa r t i e s w e r e ba c k on th e h ig h w a y a n d S c o tt r a m m e d H a r r is , th e m o to r w a y h a d b e e n c le a r e d o f m o to r is ts an d p ed estri an s al l eg ed l y b ecau se o f p o l i ce b l o ck ad es o f th e n earb y i n t ersect i o n s. 11any

thing to avoid c apture ”). 16 W e c o n c lu d e th a t r a m m in g H a r r is ’ v e h ic le u n d e rth e f a c ts a lle g e d h e r e , if b e l i e v e d b y a j u r y , w o u l d v i o l a t e H a r r i s ’ c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h tt o b e f r e e f r o m exce ss i ve force du ri ng a s ei zure . A cc ordi ng l y, a r ea sonabl e j ury c ou l d fi nd that S c o tt v io la te d H a r r is ’ F o u r th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts . W i th r e s p e c tt o Fe n n i n g e r , h o w e v e r , w e c a n n o tc o me t o th e s a me concl usi on . A l tho ug h the use of deadl y f orce ca nn otbe autho ri ze d u nd erG arner w i thoutknow i ng tha tthe G a r ne rc ondi t i ons ha ve be e n m e t , the f a c t s of thi s c a s e do n o te s t a b l i s h th a tF e n n i n g e ra u th o r i z e d d e a d l y f o r c e . R a th e r , th e e v i d e n c e s h o ws tha tF e nni nge ra uthor i z e d a P I T – de f i ne d by the di s tr i c tc our ta s “ a dr i vi ng t e c hni que de s i gne d t o s t op a f l e e i ng m ot or i s ts a f

e l y a nd qui c kl y by hi tt i ng the f l e e i ng c a ra ta s pe c i f

i c poi nton the ve hi c l e , w hi c h thr ow s the c a ri nt o a s pi n a nd bri ng s i tt o a st op . ” T hi s def i ni t i on as sum es thatthe m aneuver w i l l be execut ed at l ow e rs pe e ds by pr ope r l y tr a i ne d of f i c e r s , a nd the r e f

or e c a n t e r m i na t e a f

l i ght “s a f e ly .” S ee e. g. , G eoff

re y A l pert ’ s E xp ertR eport , R . 24 at5 (st at i ng thatthe P IT re qu i re s ase tof defi ned ci rc um st ance s i n o rderfor i tt o b e per form ed sa fe l y ( i . e. , at l ow spee ds on w i de stra i gh t aw ay s, on dry pavem entby a properl y tra i ned d ri ver) ); N a t i o n a l La w En f

o r c e me n ta n d Co r r e c t i o n s Te c h n o l o g y Ce n t e rBu l l e t i n , U . S. D e p a r tm e n t o f

J u s tic e , O c to b e r1 9 9 6 , a t 4 - 5 ( s ta tin g th a t th e P I T “is n o t ap p lic a b le17

i n e ve r y s i tua t i on, the ke y t o i t s e f f e c t i ve us e i s t o c a r e f

ul l y c hoos e a f

a vor a bl e s pot be f or e a tt e m pt i ng P I T a nd t o f i r s tc ons i de rthe pos s i bl e e f f e c t s on othe rtr a f

f i c a nd pedestri ans” ); N at i on al S an D i ego P ol i ce D epar tm entU se of F orce T as k F orce R e c om m e nda t i ons , E xe c ut i ve S um m a r y a t37 ( “ U t i l i z e d a ts pe e ds of 35 m ph or l es s, the P IT m aneuver i m prov es offi ce r a nd pu bl i c s af ety by r em ov i ng the threa t o f p u r s u it a s q u ic k ly a n d s a f e ly a s p o s s ib le .” ) . S c o tt, h o w e v e r , c h o s e n o t to e x e c u te a P I T a t a ll, b u t r a th e rto r a m th e c a ra t a v e r y h ig h s p e e d f r o m b e h in d . B ec ause thi s r am m i ng w as no tautho ri ze d b y F enni ng er , w e c anno tsa y that F enni ng er ’ s c on du ct– aut ho ri za t i on of a s af e P IT thatw as no texec ut ed – v i ol at ed H arri s’ const i tut i on al ri gh t s. T hu s, si nce F enni ng eri s notl i abl e f or a c on st i tut i on al v io lati o n , su m m ar y ju d g m en t sh o u ld b e g ra n ted in h is fa v o r. T h e d istrict co u rt’s rul i ng a s t o F e nni nge ri s the r e f or e r e ve r s e d. B . Is S cott

en tit led to q u ali

fied im m u n it

y? H avi ng det erm i ned t hata j ury c ou l d h ave r ea sonabl y f ou nd the vi ol at i on of a const i tut i on al ri gh tby S cott , w e now as k w hether the l aw as i texi st ed on M ar ch 2 9 , 2 0 0 1 , w a s s u f

f ic ie n tly c le a rto g iv e r e a s o n a b le la w e n f o r c e m e n t o f

f ic e r s “f a ir not i c e ” tha tr a m m i ng a ve hi c l e unde rthe s e c i r c um s t a nc e s w a s unl a w f ul . H ope v. P e l z e r , 536 U . S . 730, 741 ( 2002) ; A nde r s on v. C r e i ght on, 483 U . S . 635, 640 ( 1 9 8 7 ) .18

S c o tt is n o t e n title d to s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t if a “g e n e r a l c o n s titu tio n a l ru le a lr e a d y id e n tif

ie d in th e d e c is io n a l la w . . . ap p l[ ie d ] w ith o b v io u s c la r ity to [ h is c o n d u c t].” U n ite d S ta te s v . L a n ie r , 5 2 0 U .S . 2 5 9 , 2 7 1 ( 1 9 9 7 ) . I t is w e lle s t a bl i s he d tha t“ ge ne r a l s t a t e m e nt s of the l a w ” a r e pe r f

e c t l y c apa bl e of

gi vi ng c le a ra n d f

a irw a r n in g to o f

f ic e r s e v e n w h e r e “th e v e r y a c tio n in q u e s tio n h a s [ n o t] pr e vi ous l y be e n he l d unl a w f ul . ” I d. ( quot i ng A nde r s on, 483 U . S . a t640) ; V i ny a r d, 3 1 1 F .3 d a t 1 3 5 0 - 5 1 . T h u s , w h e r e a g e n e r a l c o n s titu tio n a l ru le ap p lie s w ith

“ obvi ous c l a r i ty ” t o a pa r t i c ul a rc a s e , f a c tua l l y s i m i l a rde c i s i ona l l a w i s not r e qui r e d t o de f

e a ta c l a i m of

qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty . L a ni e r , 520 U . S . a t271. W e f i nd th a t G a r n e re n u n c ia te s s u c h a ru le . 4 7 1 U .S . a t 1 1 - 1 2 . T he G arner rul e app l i es w i th “ ob vi ou s c l ar i ty” w henever a pol i ce offi ce r c ont e m pl a t e s the us e of de a dl y f or c e a ga i ns ta n una r m e d a nd nonda nge r ous f l e e i ng s us pe c t . S e e V a ugha n, 343 F . 3d a t1323; B r os s e a u v. H a uge n, 125 S . C t . 596, 599 ( 2004) ( “ O f

c our s e , i n a n obvi ous c a s e , the [ ] s t a nda r ds [ e nunc i a t e d i n G r a ha m v. C on no r, 49 0 U . S . 38 6 (19 89 ), and G arner] ca n ‘ cl ea rl y e st abl i sh’ the answ er , even w i th o u ta b o d y o f rel ev an tcase l aw ”) (ci t i n g H o p e, 5 3 6 U . S . at7 3 8 ). T h i s i s so b e c a u s e th e g e n e r a l d e a d ly f o r c e p r in c ip le a n n o u n c e d in G a r n e ris “n o t tie d to p a r tic u la r iz e d f

a c ts a n d c a n c le a r ly e s ta b lis h la w ap p lic a b le in th e f u tu r e to d if f e r e n t s e ts o f

d e ta ile d f

a c ts .” V in y a r d , 3 1 1 F .3 d a t 1 3 5 1 . H e r e , u n d e rth e f a c tsTh e sefac ts a reno t c omp ara

bleto t ho sein H arris. In th elight m os t f avo ra bleto H arris, 12 thereis n o c omp ara

blee vide nc ethat Sc ott

had a rgua bleprob a blec a us eto b e lievethat H arris posed an immediaterisk of death or serious dang er to Scott, other of ficers, or ne arby

citizens. Har ris was be ing chased f

or a tra ffic violation, not a “ crime involvingthe infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical har m.” Gar ner, 471 U .S. at 11. Unlike the situation in Brossea u, thepa rtie s w e reno t in

c los ephysic al proximi ty no r h a d th e y

had a on e -o n- on estr

ug g le . In f

a c t, Scott and the other pur suing of ficers were followingHar ris from behind in their squad car s. At the time of the ra

mming, apa

rt from spee ding a

nd runningtwo red lights, Harris was drivingin a non-ag gressive f

ashion (i.e., without trying to ram or run into the of ficers). More over, unlike Haug en, who wa s surrounded by officers on foot, with other c ars in ver y close proximity

in a residential ne ighbor

hood, Scott’s path on the open highway was larg ely

clea r. The vide os introduced into evidence showlittl e to no vehicula r (or pedestria n) traf fic, alleg edly

beca use of thelateho ur

and thepo lic eblo c kadeof

thene a rb y int e rs e c tio ns . F inally, Sc ott iss ue d a bs olute ly no war ning ( e.g ., over theloudspeaker or other wise) prior to using de adly forc e. 19 a v e r r e d b y H a r r is , a n d a s in te rp r e te d f r o m th e p e r s p e c tiv e o f

a n o b je c tiv e ly r e a s ona bl e of

f i c e r , i tw a s c l e a rtha tnone of the thr e e G a r ne rr e qui r e m e nt s f orthe u s e o f d e a d ly f o r c e w e r e p r e s e n t w h e n S c o tt r a m m e d H a r r is . T he abse nce of any G arner prec on di t i on s t o the use of deadl y f orce m akes thi s a n “ obvi ous ” c a s e unde rG a r ne ra nd di s t i ngui s he s i t s f r om B r os s e a u v. H augen. In B ross eau, the S up re m e C ou rtre vers ed the deni al of qu al i fi ed i m m uni ty t o a n of

f i c e rs ue d f

orF our th A m e ndm e ntvi ol a t i ons unde r§ 1983 f or shoo t i ng a s uspect ed fe l on as he att em pt ed t o fl ee i n a vehi cl e, w here the offi ce r ha d a r gua bl e pr oba bl e c a us e t o be l i e ve tha tthe s us pe c tpos e d a n i m m i ne ntthr e a tof s e r i ous phy s i c a l ha r m t o s e ve r a l of f i c e r s a nd c i t i z e ns i n the i m m e di a t e s ur r oundi ng a r e a . U nl i ke H a r r i s , H a uge n w a s a s us pe c t e d f e l on w i th a no- ba i l w a r r a ntoutf or 12 hi s a r r e s t , w i th w hom B r os s e a u ha d a vi ol e ntphy s i c a l e nc ount e rpr i ort o the shoo t i ng . B el i evi ng thatH augen h ad ent er ed the Je ep t o retri eve agu n, B ross eau20

b r o k e th e w i n d o w p a n e o f th e J e e p , a n d a tt e mp t e d t o s t o p H a u g e n b y h i tt i n g h i m ove rthe he a d w i th the butta nd ba r r e l of he rgun. H a uge n w a s unde t e r r e d, how e ve r , a nd be ga n t o t a ke of f outof the dr i ve w a y , w i thoutr e ga r d f ors a f e ty of th o s e in h is im m e d ia te v ic in ity – th e th r e e o f f ic e r s o n f o o t ( H a u g e n a t h is i m m edi at e l ef

tand t w o o thers w i th a K -9 som ew here nearby), a w om an and h er 3-ye ar -ol d chi l d i n a sm al l vehi cl e parked d i re ct l y i n frontof the Je ep and 4 fe et a w a y , a n d tw o m e n in a p a r k e d v e h ic le 2 0 to 3 0 f e e t a w a y . I n a d d itio n , p r io rto s hoot i ng, B r os s e a u w a r ne d H a uge n tha ts he w oul d s hootby poi nt i ng he rgun a tthe s u s p e c t w h ile c o m m a n d in g h im to g e t o u t o f th e c a r , a n d th e n u s in g th e g u n to s h a tte rth e g la s s o f

th e c a rw in d o w a n d h it H a u g e n in a n a tte m p t to g e t th e k e y s . L oo ki ng t o G arner, the B ross eau C ou rtre cogn i ze d thati t s c l ea rl y e st abl i shed deadl y f orce rul e ( i . e. , that“ i ti s unrea sonabl e f or an offi ce r t o ‘ se i ze an un arm ed no n d angerous suspectby shoo t i ng hi m dead’ ”) w as l i m i t ed by the C ou rt ’ s f urther i nstruct i on that“ [w ] here the offi ce r has prob abl e c ause t o b el i eve thatthe suspec t pos e s a thr e a tof

s e r i ous phy s i c a l ha r m , e i the rt o the of f i c e rort o othe r s , i ti s not c ons t i tut i ona l l y unr e a s ona bl e t o pr e ve nte s c ape by us i ng de a dl y f or c e . ” B r os s e a u, 1 2 5 S .C t. a t 5 9 8 ( q u o tin g G a r n e r , 4 7 1 U .S . a t 1 1 ) . T h u s , th e B r o s s e a u C o u r t h e ld th a t G a r n e rd id n o t p r o v id e a r e a s o n a b le o f f ic e rw ith f

a irn o tic e o f

a F o u r th A m e n d m e n t v io la tio n in “th e s itu a tio n [ B r o s s e a u ] c o n f r o n te d : w h e th e rto s h o o t aIn the ca ses re lied upon by Brosseau, the of

ficer had a

rguable probable c ause to be lieve 13 that the suspects pre sented a n immediate risk of da

ng er to the of

ficers or other s. See B rossea u, 125 S.Ct . at 600 (c iting Cole v. B one, 993 F .2d 1328 (8th Cir. 1993), and Smith v. Fre land, 954 F.2d 343 ( 6th Cir. 1992)). The orig inal panel opinion in Vaughan, which grante d summary judgment to the 14 defendant offic er on grounds of qualified immunity , was vacate d by the Supreme Court a

nd rema nded for rec onsideration in light of the Court’s intervening de cision in Hope. See V aughan, 536 U.S. 953 (2002). 21 d is tu rb e d f

e lo n , s e t o n a v o id in g c ap tu r e th r o u g h v e h ic u la rf lig h t, w h e n p e r s o n s in th e im m e d ia te a r e a a r e a t r is k f r o m th a t f

lig h t.” I d . a t 6 0 0 ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . T he C our tdi d a c know l e dge , how e ve r , tha tthe s t a nda r d i n G a r ne rc a n

“ c l e a r l y e s t a bl i s h” w he the rornotthe us e of de a dl y f or c e i s unc ons t i tut i ona l i n the

“ ob vi ou s c as e. ” I d. at59 9. T he fa ct s i n H arri s pre se ntj ustsuch an “ ob vi ou s” ca se , s i nc e the e vi de nc e s how s tha tS c ottl a c ke d the s uf f i c i e ntpr oba bl e c a us e t o w a r r a nt the use of deadl y f

orce . In thi s w ay , H arri s i s m ore l i ke V augh an, 34 3 F . 3d at ( 2003) , tha n B r os s e a u orthe c a s e s c i t e d the r e i n. S e e V a ugha n, 343 F . 3d a t1333 13 (“ appl [y i ng ] G arner i n a com m on -s ense w ay ” t o h ol d thata r ea sonabl e off i ce r w oul d ha ve know n tha ti tw a s unc ons t i tut i ona l t o us e de a dl y f or c e dur i ng a hi ghspee d p ursui tw here the suspec tpo se d n o i m m edi at e threa tof harm t o p ol i ce of f i c e r s orothe r s ) . W i thoutthe e xi s t e nc e of a n i m m e di a t e thr e a tof

ha r m t o the 14 o f f ic e r s o ro th e r s th a t c o u ld ju s tif y th e o f f ic e r ’s p r o b a b le c a u s e , th e G a r n e rru le p r o h ib itin g d e a d ly f

o r c e c le a r ly ap p lie s . S cottar gu es thatG arner does notappl y bec ause i n thatca se , the offi ce rSee citations on pag es 11-12, supra . 15 Brower , 489 U.S. at 596-99. 16 22 ap p lie d th e d e a d ly f

o r c e w ith a g u n . S c o tt r e lie s o n o u rh o ld in g in A d a m s th a t in 1 9 8 5 , th e c a s e la w w a s in s u f f ic ie n tly d e v e lo p e d to g iv e n o tic e to e v e r y o b je c tiv e ly re as on abl e off

i ce r thata pol i ce ca r r am m i ng anot her c ardu ri ng a hi gh -s peed p u r s u i tw o u l d c o n s t i tu t e a n u n r e a s o n a b l e s e i z u r e . H o w e v e r , th e f a c t s i n A d a ms occurre d b ef

ore B row erw as deci ded, and t hu s, ata t i m e bef ore the S up re m e C ou rt m a d e c le a rth a t th e in te n tio n a l u s e o f a v e h ic le to ap p r e h e n d a s u s p e c t w a s a F o u r th A m en d m en tsei zu re. T h atp ri n ci p l e i s n o w sett l ed . G arn er m ad e cl ear th atth e u se of deadl y f

orce agai nstan un arm ed and n on dang er ou s f l ee i ng fe l on y s uspectw as u n la w f u l a n d s e t o u t th e s p e c if ic c r ite r ia n e c e s s a r y b e f o r e th e ap p lic a tio n o f

d e a d ly forc e i s w arra nt ed. T hi s l aw cl ea rl y app l i ed t o the use of avehi cl e t o sei ze a suspec tatthe t i m e of the i nci denti n thi s c as e. W e a r e s a t i s f

i e d tha t , unde rH ope , the r e qui r e m e nttha tthe of f i c e r s ha ve

“ fa i r w arni ng ” thatthei r c on du ctvi ol at es a c on st i tut i on al ri gh tthrou gh a genera l c o n s titu tio n a l ru le , “e v e n th r o u g h th e v e r y a c tio n in q u e s tio n h a s [ n o t] p r e v io u s ly be e n he l d unl a w f

ul , ” ha s be e n s a t i s f

i e d. 536 U . S . a t740- 41 ( i nt e r na l quot a t i on m a r k s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . A r e a s o n a b le p o lic e o f f ic e rw o u ld h a v e k n o w n in 2 0 0 1 th a t a v e h ic le c o u ld b e u s e d to ap p ly d e a d ly f o r c e , c o u ld b e u s e d to 15 e f f e c tua t e a s e i z ur e , a nd tha tde a dl y f or c e c oul d notbe us e d t o appr e he nd a 1623

fl ee i ng suspec tun l es s the cond i t i on s s etou ti n G arner e xi st ed. G arner, 47 1 U . S . at 11 -12. S ee al so V augh an, 34 3 F . 3d at13 29 -30. T he G arner C ou rtused the t erm

“ de a dl y f or c e , ” not“ ha ndgun, ” i n e nunc i a t i ng i t s rul e . G a r ne r , 471 U . S . a t11- 12 (“ T h u s, i f th e su sp ectth reat en s th e o ffi cer w i th a w eap o n o r th ere i s p ro b ab l e cau se t o b el i eve thathe has c om m i tt ed a c ri m e i nv ol vi ng the i nfl i ct i on or threa t ened in f lic tio n o f s e r io u s p h y s ic a l h a r m , d e a d ly f o r c e m a y b e u s e d . . .” ) ( e m p h a s is s u p p lie d ) . M o r e o v e r , th e o p in io n r e c o g n iz e s th e o b v io u s p r in c ip le th a t “d e a d ly f o r c e ” c a n b e in f

lic te d th r o u g h o th e rm e a n s . I d ., 4 7 1 U .S . a t 1 4 ( o b s e r v in g th a t in t i m es w h en w eap o n s w ere ru d i m en t ary, “ [d ] ead l y fo rce co u l d b e i n fl i ct ed al m o st s ol e l y i n a ha nd- t o- ha nd s truggl e . . . ” ) . S e e V a ugha n, 343 F . 3d a t1332 ( “ the S upr e m e C our ti n H ope c a ut i one d tha tw e s houl d notbe undul y r i gi d i n r e qui r i ng factu al si m i l ari ty b etw een p ri o r cases an d th e case u n d er co n si d erat i o n ”). S ee al so G ut i e r r e z v. C i ty of

S a n A nt oni o, 139 F . 3d 441, 446 ( 5th C i r . 1998) ( appl y i ng G a r ne r“ de a dl y f

or c e ” rul e t o de t e r m i ne w he the rof f i c e r s w e r e qua l i f

i e dl y i m m une f o rh o g - ty in g s u s p e c t) . B y 2001, i tw a s w e l l - e s t a bl i s he d i n thi s c i r c ui ttha t“ de a dl y f or c e ” m e a ns f o r c e th a t c r e a te s a s u b s ta n tia l r is k o f c a u s in g d e a th o rs e r io u s b o d ily in ju r y . P rui tt , 77 1 F . 2d at14 79 n. 10 . T he C C S D po l i cy i n 2 00 1 em pl oyed a near -i dent i ca l de f i ni t i on. M or e ove r , by 1986, w e ha d r e c ogni z e d the pot e nt i a l l y l e tha l na tur e of24

an aut om ob i l e. S ee G ual dado , 79 4 F . 2d at15 35 , and o ther c as es ci t ed on pages 11 -12, supra. W e a re sa t i sf

i ed thatcom m on se nse w ou l d i nform any r ea sonabl e off i ce r th a t th e r e w o u ld b e s u b s ta n tia l r is k s o f d e a th o rb o d ily h a r m if h e u s e d h is v e h ic le t o ram anot her vehi cl e a thi gh spee ds i n the m anner emp l oyed i n thi s c as e. S ee C C S D U se of F orce P ol i cy , R . 48 , E x. 12 at82 (r es tri ct i ng the use of deadl y f orce t o “ [ w] h e n th e De p u ty r e a s o n a b l y b e l i e v e s i ti s n e c e s s a r y t o d e f e n d th e i r[ s i c ] o wn l i f e orthe l i f

e of a nothe rort o pr e ve ntgr a ve bodi l y i nj ur y t o the m s e l ve s [ s i c ] or a nothe r , a nd a l l othe ra va i l a bl e m e a ns of de f e ns e ha ve f

a i l e d orw oul d be in a d e q u a te o rd a n g e r o u s ,” o r“[ w ]h e n n e c e s s a r y to p r e v e n t th e c o m m is s io n o f . . . an y fel o n y w h i ch i n v o l v es th e u se o r th reato f p h ysi cal fo rce o r v i o l en ce ag ai n st any per son. ”) . S ee al so G a. C od e A nn . , § 1 7-4-20 (b) ( “ S heri ff s a nd peac e off

i ce rs

. . . m ay use dea dl y f

orce t o app re hend a s uspect ed fe l on on l y w hen t he offi ce r r e a s o n a b ly b e lie v e s th a t th e s u s p e c t p o s s e s s e s a d e a d ly w e ap o n o ra n y o b je c t, de vi c e , ori ns trum e ntw hi c h, w he n us e d of f e ns i ve l y a ga i ns ta pe r s on, i s l i ke l y t o or ac tual l y does r es ul ti n ser i ou s bod i l y i nj ury; w hen t he offi ce r r ea sonabl y bel i eves tha tthe s us pe c tpos e s a n i m m e di a t e thr e a tof phy s i c a l vi ol e nc e t o the of f i c e ror othe r s ; orw he n the r e i s pr oba bl e c a us e t o be l i e ve tha tthe s us pe c tha s c om m i tt e d a cr i m e i nv ol vi ng the i nfl i ct i on or threa t ened i nfl i ct i on of se ri ou s physi ca l harm . ”) ;25

G a r n e r , 4 7 1 U .S . a t 1 0 - 1 1 ( “T h e f a c t is th a t a m a

jo r ity o f p o lic e d e p a r tm e n ts in th is coun try have forbi dd en the use of deadl y f orce agai nstno nv i ol entsuspec t s. ”) . C f. C C S D P ur s ui tP ol i c y , R . 48, E x. 11, a t94 ( c a t e gor i z i ng r oa dw a y ba r r i c a de s a s the use of dea dl y f

orce and l i m i t i ng thei r use “ on l y by orderof a s up ervi sor a nd then o n ly a s a la s t r e s o r t w h e n th e p e r s o n p u r s u e d h a s p r o v e n b y h is m e th o d o f f lig h t a to ta l d is r e g a r d f

o rth e liv e s a n d s a f

e ty o f th e p u b lic ” ) . F orthe f or e goi ng r e a s ons , w e f

i nd no r e ve r s i bl e e r r ori n the de ni a l of q u a lif ie d im m u n ity to S c o tt a t th is s ta g e in th is c a s e . C o n s is te n t w ith th e f

o r e g o in g c o n c lu s io n s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t o p in io n is RE VERS ED I N PART a n d AFFI RM ED I N PART.26

C O X , C i r c ui tJ udge , s pe c i a l l y c onc ur r i ng: I do notj oi n J udge B a r ke tt ’ s opi ni on f orthe c our t , butc onc uri n the ju d g m e n t.