T he Hon. R i char d M i l l s, U ni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Judg e f or t he C ent r al D i st r i ct of I l l i noi s, si t t i ng b y * d e s i g n a ti o n . NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 07a0632n .06 Fi led : A ug ust29, 2007 No . 05- 2607 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT
JOA N MA RI E M UR RA

Y -R UH L, P ersonal Rep re senta ti v e of the Est ate o f Mi chael Dea n M ur ra y , D eceas ed, Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lan t,
v. THOM AS P ASSI NAULT and JA SON JEN KIN S, Defend ant s-Appe llees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL F RO M THE UN ITED ST AT ES DIST RICT COUR T FOR T HE EASTER N DI STRIC T OF MI CH IGAN

Before: BO GGS, C hie f Circ uitJu dg e, D AU GH TREY , C ircui t J udg e, an d M ILLS, * Di str ic t J udg e.
MA RTH A C RA IG DA UG HTR EY , C ircuit Judg e. Pl ain ti ff Jo an M ar ie Mu rray -R uhl filed thi s c iv il r ig hts ac ti on unde r 42 U .S.C . § 1983, cl aimi ng that S h ia wass e e C ounty (Michig an) Depu ty She riffs T hom as Passin ault and Ja son Jenkin s acted unrea sona bly in usi ng deadl y

forc e ag ain st her

so n, M ic hael Mu rray , in v iol ati on of hi s F our th A mendment ri g hts

. She now

appeals the dis tr ic t cour t’ s g ra nt of

su mmary

j udg ment t o the defendants based on the cour

t’ s deter minat ion thatthey w ere ent it led to q ual ified i mmunity i n the fatalMu rra

y -R uh l v . Passin au lt No. 05-2607

- 2 - shoo ting of Murray

. W e af f irm the grant of sum ma ry judgme nt to def end an tJe nkins. How ever, becau se w e con clude thatthe record ref lects genuine d ispute s o f m ate rial fa ct
conc er nin g the re asona ble ness of defendant Pa ss ina ult ’s ac ti on, w e find it neces sar y to
rev erse the g r an t of s um ma r y j ud g me ntt o hi m a nd rem an d th e c as e to t he d i s tr i c t c ourt for furt her

proceed ing s.

FACTUA L A ND PROCEDUR A L BACKGROUND
Al thoug h the par

ti es’ v ersi ons of the facts su rroundi ng the act ual sh ooti ng co nflict, the fact s leadi ng up to the ev ent a re es sent ial ly undi sput ed. The record es tabl is hes that on th e ev eni ng of September 5, 2003, Mu rray and a frie nd, Ry an Con kl in, att ended a par ty at th e ho me of

a mu tua l f ri e n d

. A ccording to Conklin, the pa ir arr iv ed so me time before midni g ht an d l eft w hen t he par ty broke up s ev eral hours lat er . Mu rray and Conk li n ag re ed t o d ri ve two yo u n g wo m e n , R e b e c c a R o d ri gu e z a n d C o re y S t ra u b , h o m e f ro m t h e p a rt y. Con kl in dropped o ff

M ur ra y and Rod ri g uezat Unc le Buck ’s bar , w here M ur ra y had par ked his tr uck ear li er i n the ev eni ng , t hen l eft to t ake Straub home. Murray , w ith Rodriguez sitting in the passe nger seat, was pulling outof the Uncle Buck’s pa rking lot w hen he saw the defend ant s’ patrol car driv e by. In a mo me nt of pan ic, p re su m a b ly be ca u se h e h a d vio la te d h is p a ro le b y co n su m in g a lco h o l e a rlie r th a t e ven in g, Mu rray att empted t o av oid the pol ic e by dr iv ing ac ro ss adj acentpar ki ng lots and pul li ng i nto
an a lley thatope ned into a pa rking lot for nea rbybusine sses. Murray turned of

f the truck’sMu rra

y -R uh l v . Passin au lt No. 05-2607

D espi t e t he char act erization as undisput ed factin the con cur ri n g opinion that “w hile 1 appr oaching Passinault w ithin eig ht f eet, M urr ay w as acceler ating enoug h to cause his tire s to spin and to lo se con trol of hi s tru ck,” the reco rd fai ls to esta bl is h th e o f f ic er’ s preci se l oca tio n w hen the truck l eft tire marks on the pav emen t. T he foren si c re port state s th at h eavyac cel erati on cau sed the tire s to sp in , bu t i t i s p oss ib le , ba sed on the ev id enc e that is i n th e re cord , tha t the truc k di d n ot b e gi n t o l o se c o n tr o l a n d r o ta te u n ti l M u rr a yt u rn e d t h e w h e e l i n o rd e r to a v o i d h i tt i n g P a ss i n a u l t.

- 3 - li g hts and eng ine , duc ked dow n i n hi s s eat t o hi de f ro m the poli ce, and tol d R odr ig uezto do th e s ame.
Jenkin s and Passina ult ob serv ed Murray’s truc kex iting the lot ne ar Uncle Buck’s and followed it, conclud ing th e truck w as bein g driv en e rratically . Ultimate ly , the of f icers loc ated the t ru ck

i n the a lleyand par ked direct ly behi nd M ur ra y ’s v ehi cl e, bl ock ing i t. Jenk in s a n d P a s s i n a u l t g o t o u t o f t h e p a t ro l c a r a n d , s e e i n g n o v i s i b l e o c c u p a nts i n the tr uck , beg an to se ar ch the sur ro undi ng area on foot. After the off ic ers p ass ed by , M ur ra y sta rt ed th e tr uck ’s eng ine

. Bey ond t hat p oin t, the fact s o f this ca se are hi g hly di sput ed.
The Defendants’ Ve rsion of th e Facts
T he d efend ant s claim tha t af ter Murray

started the truck, he acce lerate d directly tow ard Pas si naul t, w ho w as stan din g nex t to a pol e barn approx imat ely 165 feet nor

th of the t ru ck

. Jenk ins and Pass ina ultal so ass ert t hat P ass ina ultw as “e ff ect iv e ly trapped bet w een the truck and t he pole b arn.” Accordin g to the d efend ant s, Passina ult repe ate dly 1
ordered th e dr iv er

of the t ru ck

to sto p, but his orders w ere di sreg arded and the dr iv er of the truck cont inue d ac c elerating tow ard him . Passina ult gav e con f licting accou nts of how closeMu rra

y -R uh l v . Passin au lt No. 05-2607

- 4 - the t ru ck ca me as itpas sed him, ev entual ly test ify ing thati t w as betw een one and eig ht feet aw ay

from w here he w as sta ndi ng w hen he fire d the first shotat the d river

. But immedi atel y

after the shoot ing and for s ome day s a fterw ard, he repor ted t hat h e had been hitby the tr uck

and inj ured – ev en g oin g so far a s t o c all for an ambula nce to come to the
sc ene bec ause he needed medic al atten ti on. How ev er , that v ersi on of t he facts tur ned out to be a c omplet e fabri cat ion

. In t ru th, Pass ina ulthad not been hit by the tr uck and cont inu ed shoot ing after ithad passe d him , claiming later tha t he be liev ed th at t h e d ri ve r might be he adin g toward his par tner , J enki ns, w ho w as on foot s omew here i n the area. Pass ina ultal so ass erts that he fire d at the t ru ck

as i t w as dr iv en aw ay from him becau se he w as conc er ned for the s afety of other off ic ers w ho had been s ummoned to the s cene and for the publi c in g eneral. The
v ehi cl e w as not bei ng operated at a hig h rate o f speed, how ev er , and there w ere no other off ic ers o r members of the p ubl ici n the area atthe ti me of thes e ev ents

. Lat er inv estigation revealed t hatP assina ult had f ired a tot al of 12 sho ts at the truck, at lea st tw o or t hree o f

which struck Murray . Th e truck eventu ally came to a stop in a ditch some d is tanc e dow n the road, w it h M ur ra y sl umped ov er

the w heel , dea d.
The Plai ntiff’s Versi on of the Facts
Beca use Reb ecc a R odr ig uez w as an ey ew it ness to w hat occ ur re d, t he pl ain ti ff w as abl e to off er

a s ig nific antl y

di ff er ent v ersi on of e ven ts , which must , of co urse, be v iew edMu rra

y -R uh l v . Passin au lt No. 05-2607

- 5 - in the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to her

. Acc ordin g t o t h is a cc o u nt of the facts , w hen M ur ra y starte d the truck in order to esca pe f rom th e alley, he accele rated not to w ard P assina ult but rather

tow ard the onl y

ex itav ail abl e to him. Be caus e the off ic ers’ patrol car bl ock ed the truck in the alley from beh ind, “Murrayhad only one o ption , w hich w as to driv e forw ard pastthe po sition of

the Dep uties” i n orde r to get away . Th e plain tif f conce des th at Murray’ s tr uck w ent b y Pas si naul t ata di sta nce of about eig ht feet, but a ss erts that he to ok thi s p ath
o n ly b e c a u s e h e co u ld n o tge to u to f t h e a ll e y a n y o t h e r wa y. Rodriguez testif ied th at she hea rd P assina ult y ell at Murray to stop the truck on ly once, as oppos ed to the re peated orders t hat t he defendants c la im P ass ina ultmade. Accordin g to Rod rig uez, af ter orde ri n g Mu rray to stop, Passina ult did no t w ait for a re spons e buti mmediat ely fired hi s w eapon. M oreov er , t he reco rd t e n d s to s how that P a s s in a u ltf ir e d o n ly t h a tf ir s tsh o tb e fo re t h e t ru c kp a s s e d h i m a n d wa s m o vin g a wa y, beca use foren sic ev iden ce fails to ref lect tha t even one bullet struck th e f ront of the truck
or the w ind shi eld

. Ins tead, ac cordin g to Rod ri g uez , Pass ina ultfired th e remaini ng sh ots after the tr uck had already tur ned and dr iv en past him. She tes ti fied, in fact, that she saw Pass ina ultr unni ng after the tr uck

as he c onti nued s hooti ng at it

. Th e p l a i n t i ff a l s o c o n t e n d s t h a tt h e fa t a l s h ot coul d n o th a v e b e e n fi r e d i n s e l fdef ense beca use, according to the auto psy repo rt, the sh ot tha t killed Murray w ould also have paralyz ed h is leg s, y et he w as able t o ope rate the t ruck’s gas ped al for so me distan ceMu rra

y -R uh l v . Passin au lt No. 05-2607

- 6 - after passin g P a ss inault

. In ad dit ion , t he aut opsy repor t i ndi cat es that the b ull et mov ed from the back

of Mu rray ’s body

tow ard the front , i ndi cat ing thathe w as shotfrom beh ind

. T he p laintif

f calls into question P assina ult’s alleged conce rn for the sa fety of othe rs. Altho ugh Passina ult claime d tha t he con tinue d sho oting a fter the truck had passe d him becau se he bel iev ed i t w as bear ing dow n on his par tner , Jenk ins ind ic ated that he w as not in the t ru ck ’s path and that he nev er felt in d a n gerof

bei ng st ru ck

by the v ehi cl e. The pla int iff als o as ser

ts that the o ff ic ers l ack ed reason to bel iev e M u rray pos ed an ult imat e t h re a tt o t h e ge n e ra l p u b li cb e c a u s e , d e s p it e t h e o f f ic e rs ’ s u s p i c io n s t h a th e m ig h th a ve com mitt ed a crime of

so me so rt, t he mo st serious of fense t hey a ctua lly

sa w h im com mit
w as a traff icv iol ati on.
A l l e g i n g v i o l a t i o n s o f r i g h t s g u a ra n t e e d u n d e r t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n , p l a i n t i ff Murray -Ruhl f iled suit on beh alf of her son’ s e s t a t e u nde r § 1983 and a com para ble Mi ch ig an s tatut e, M I CH
. C O MP
. L AW S § 69 1.1 407 (2007 ), against def end ant s Jenkins, Pass ina ult , Sh iaw ass ee C ounty , and Shi aw ass ee C ounty Sher iff Jon W il son, but the l atter tw o parti es hav e been dis mis sed from the li ti g ati on bystip ula ti on. The cas e bel ow focuse d on t h e p lai nti ff ’s cl aim that the o ff ic ers u sed deadl y forc e i n v iol ati on of the Four th Amendment. De f endants Pas si naul t and Je nki ns mov ed for summar y j udg ment on the basi s of q ual ified immunity , and the dis tr ic t cour t granted the motion , hol din g thatq ual ified immuni ty w as appropr iat e bec ause Pas si naul t ac ted reason abl y w hen he shotand ki ll ed Mu rray and, alt er nati v ely , becau se the pla int iff fail ed to ide nti fy a c lea rl y es tabl is hed r ig htMu rra

y -R uh l v . Passin au lt No. 05-2607

- 7 - that w as v iol ated in the c ourse of her son’ s de a th. Pursuantto it s d is creti on unde r 28 U. S.C . § 1367( c) (4 ), the dis tr ic t c our t dec li ned t o ex er ci se su p p le mental j ur is dicti on and dis mis sed the plai nti ff ’s state law clai ms. The pla int iff now appeals the dis tr ic t c our t’ s o rd er g ra nti ng su mmary

j udg ment t o the defendants

.

DI SC US SION
St and ard o f Rev iew
W e re v iew a di str ic t c our t’ s g ra nt of s ummary

j udg ment de n ovo . S e e Ci m in il lo v. Streic her , 434 F. 3d 461, 464 (6 Ci r. 2006)

. Summary jud g ment is proper w her e “the th ple adi ngs, d e p o siti ons, ans w ers t o i nter ro g ator ies , and admi ss ion s o n fil e, t og ether w it h the a ff ida v it s, if any , show that there is no g enui ne i ss ue as to any mater ial fact a nd th at the mo v ing party is ent itled to a judgme nt as a ma tter of law .” F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 56( c)

. A genuine issu e of

m ate rial fact exists w hen , assum ing the truth of the no n-mo v ing party ’s
ev ide nce and c onst ru ing al l inferences from t hat e v ide nce in the li g ht mos t fav orabl e to the
non- mov ing par

ty , t here i s suffici ent ev ide nce for a tr ier of fact to find for

thatpar ty

. See Ci mini ll o, 43 4 F .3d a t 464

. Quali fied Immunity
In rev iew ing a claim of

qua lifie d imm unity, w e recognize that “gov ernm entof f icials per forming di sc re ti onar

y f u n ct io ns g enerall y

are s hie lde d from l iab il ity for c iv il damag esMu rra

y -R uh l v . Passin au lt No. 05-2607

- 8 - ins ofar as thei r cond uctdoes not vi ola te cl ear ly establ is hed statu tor

y or co nst it uti onal r ig hts of w hic h a reason abl e person w oul d hav e k now n.” Har low v. Fit z g erald , 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1 982)

. Qual ified i mmunity enti tl es a g ov er nment off ic ial “ not t o s tand tr ial or face t he ot her b u rd e n s o f

li t ig a t io n . ” S a u c ie r v. K a t z, 5 3 3 U. S

. 1 9 4 , 2 0 0 ( 2 0 0 1 ) ( qu o t in g Mi t c h e ll v. Forsyth, 4 72 U.S. 511 , 526 ( 1 9 8 5 )) . “The central pu rpose of af fording pub lic of

f icials q ual ified i mmunity

from s uiti s t o protec t t hem ‘ from undue int er ferenc e w it h the ir

duti es and from potent ial ly

di sabl ing threats of li abi li ty ’. ” El der v . Hol lo way , 510 U .S. 510, 514 (1 994) ( q uoti ng H ar low , 457 U .S. at 80 6)

. In S auci er

v . Ka tz , t he Sup re me Co u rt e st abl is hed a tw o- prong ed i nq uir y to det ermin e an of

f icial’s entitlem entto qualif ied i mm unity in the conte xt of an excessiv e force claim. 533 U.S. a t 200 -01. First, the review ing court mustask: “Ta ken in th e lig ht most favorable to th e pa rty

asserting the injury , do the fact s alleged show the of f icer’s condu ct
v iol ated a c onst it uti onal r ig ht?” Id. at 201. If a con sti tuti onal r ig ht w as v iol ated, “ the n ext, seq uenti al ste p i s to a sk wh e ther the ri g ht w as cl ear ly

es tabl is hed.” I d. The Co urt has emphasi z ed th e i mport ance of defining the ri g ht al leg edl y v iol ated at t he appropr iat e l ev el of spec ific ity , hol din g that“ the ri g ht the off ic ial is all eg ed to ha v e v iol ated must hav e been ‘c lea rl y es tabl is hed’ i n a more par ti cul ar iz ed, a nd henc e m o re r e lev ant, sens e” and that “[t]he conto urs of

the ri gh tm u s tbe suf f iciently clear tha t a reaso nab le of f icial w ould understa nd th at w hat h e i s doi ng v iol ates thatr ig ht.” An derson v . C re ig hton, 483 U. S. 6 35, 640 (1987 ). Thu s, qualif ied imm unity is inap prop riate if it w ould be clear to a rea sona ble of f icer that h is condu ct w as un lawf ul.Mu rra

y -R uh l v . Passin au lt No. 05-2607

- 9 - Cen tral to ou r dis posi ti on i n thi s cas e, how ev er , is our re cog nit ion that if “ the l eg al q uest ion of immuni ty

i s c omplet ely

depend ent u pon w hic h v iew of the fact s i s a cc epted by th e j ur y ,” t he d i s tr i c t c ou rt s ho ul d no t gran t i mmu ni ty from a d ea dl y

forc e c l ai m. Brand enb urg v . Cureton , 8 8 2 F

. 2 d 211 , 215 -16 (6 Cir . 198 9). “[S]um ma ry judgmen t is th ina ppropr iat e w here the re are content iou s fact ual disput es ov er the reason abl eness of the
use of deadly

forc e.” So v a v . C ity

of Mt . Pl easan t, 142 F .3d 8 90, 9 03 ( 6th C ir . 199 8)

. Did Pass inault’s Condu ct Violate a Constitut ional Right? In thi s ci rc uit , w e hav e not ed th at “ [q ]ual ified i mmunity i n c ases i nv olv ing cl aims of deadl y forc e i s d ifficul t t o det er mine on s ummary j udg ment becaus e l iab il ity tur ns upon t he Four th A mendment’ s reas onabl eness test.” Sov a v . Ci ty of Mt. Pl easan t,142 F .3d 8 98, 9 02 (6 C ir . 199 8)

. Und er T ennes see v . G ar ner , a pol ic e off ic er may us e deadl y

forc e to th prevent esca pe o nly “[w]he re the o f f icer has prob able cause to believe th a tt he su spect poses a t hr eat o f ser iou s p hy si cal har m, ei ther to the off ic er or to ot hers,” 471 U. S. 1 , 11 (1 985) ; “ iti s unreason abl e for an off ic er to ‘s eiz e an unar med, non dang erous sus pectby shoot ing hi m dead,’ ” Bross eau v . Haug en, 543 U.S. 194, 197 (2 004) (per cu ri am) (q uoti ng Gar ner , 471 U .S. at 11)

. The Four th Amendment’ s re asona ble ness tes t is an o bje cti v e one and “ must be j udg ed f ro m the pers pect iv e of a re asona ble of

ficer on the sce ne, rather

than
w it h the 20/2 0 v is ion of hin dsi g ht.” G ra ham v . C onnor , 490 U .S. 386, 396 ( 1989)

. Hen ce,
w e may not subs ti tute our

j udg ment for that of the pol ic e off ic er on t he s cene but, ins tead, must make “ all ow ance for th e fact that pol ic e off ic ers a re often forc ed to make spl it -s econd jud g ments - in ci rc umstan ces thatare ten se, unc ertai n, an d rapi dly ev o lv ing - abouttheMu rra

y -R uh l v . Passin au lt No. 05-2607

- 10 - amount o f for ce that is nec ess ar y i n a p arti cul ar

si tuati on.” I d. at397. Ac cordin g ly , an off ic er acc used of us ing deadl y force in v iol ati on of a sus pect ’s Four th A mendment r ig hts shoul d notbe a fforded q ual ified i mmunity “ if, on an obj ect iv e bas is , i t i s o bv iou s t hat no
reaso nab ly

comp ete nt of

f icer w ould have [shot th e v ictim]; but if of f icers of reason able compet ence coul d dis ag re e on thi s is sue, immuni ty shoul d be recog niz ed.” So v a, 14 2 F .3d at 90 3 ( alt erati on i n or ig ina l) ( q uoti ng M all ey v . Br ig g s, 475 U .S. 335, 341 ( 1986) ). In t his ca se , the p lai nti ff co ntends that

Pas si naul t’ s u se of deadly forc e w as “constitu tiona lly

unrea sona ble” beca use Murray did not pose a threa t to eith er the o f f icers
or to the g eneral publ ic

. The di str ic t c our t di sag re ed, f ind ing thatPas si naul t’ s c onduc t w as re asona ble and, thus , t here w as no v iol ati on of M ur ra y ’s F our th Amendment ri g hts

. Und er Sau cier’s tw o-pron ged inquiry , “[i]f no con stitutio nal right w ould have bee n v iolate d w ere the a ll eg ati ons est abl is hed, there is no necess ity for f urther inq uir ies co ncer nin g q ual ified im m u n it y.” 53 3 U.S . a t 2 0 1

. Ho wever, th e d ist ric t cou rt a lso a d d re ss e d th e se co n d pro n g, hold ing that the plaintif f had no t esta blished thatthe de fend ant s had v iolate d a clearly est abl is hed r ig ht be caus e s he “ ha[d] fail ed to di sti ng uis h” ca ses ci ted b y the cour

t i n i ts opi nio n and “fai led to demonst ra te any si mil ar factual sc enar ios w here the Cou rt denied q ual ified i mmunity

to the d efendant pol ic e off icers. ” The di str ic t c our t w as forced to
conc ede that the “fact ual sc enar ios ” in the three ci ted cas es w ere “n ot ide nti cal ” to t he facts in the i nst ant c ase, but nev erthel ess pos tul ated that they w ere “ si mil ar .” Our rev iew of the c ases reli ed upon by the dis tr ic t c our

t rev eal s, how ev er , t hat t hey bear v ir tual ly no si mil ar ity

to the fact s in thi s c ase. The di str ic t c our t w as undoubt edl y

l edMu rra

y -R uh l v . Passin au lt No. 05-2607

- 11 - into e rror i n this regard by having sum ma riz ed th e events laid ou t abo v e in a single sent ence, w hic h, far f ro m s tati ng the facts in the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the p lai nti ff , as requ ired, ac tual ly

su mmari z ed th em i n a l ig ht de ci dedl y fav orabl e to the d efendants and then conc lud ed, w it hout further anal y si s, that Pass ina ult ’s ac ti ons w ere reason abl e: On t he ni g ht of Sept ember 6, 2003, Dep uty

Pas si naul t made a s pli t- sec ond deci sion to use let hal forc e i n order to protec t hi msel f and D eputy Je nki ns f rom a truck w hich w as accele rating in his direction , w hich ha d v iolate d his order to sto p, w hic h came w it hin eig ht feet o f str ik ing D eputy Pas si naul t, and w hic h w as esc api ng from t he s cene. T h e C our t finds thatD eputi es Passin ault a nd Je nkins act ed rea sona bly und er the circum stan ces. Obviously , if

Passina ult ha d f ired a single shot as th e truck cam e at him – or ev en a s it pass ed c los e to him – the di str ic t c our t’ s fin din g s o f fact , as abbrev iat ed as they w ere, might be subje ct to deferen ce on appe al. Butone fact glaringl y obvious f rom th e record is thatPas si naul t empt ied hi s w eapon a t t h e ve h icle, relo aded i t, and fired atM ur ra y per haps as many

as a do z en ti mes ev en after the tr uck had pass ed by

hi m and, thus , after Pass ina ultco uld reason abl y bel iev e tha t i t i mposed a threat t o hi msel f o r – i f Deput y Jenk ins is to be bel iev ed – to his partner

. It w as one of thes e “ after shot s” thatprov ed to be fatal

. At t he v er

y l east , t his record c re a te s a di sput e of fact c oncer nin g w hether ev ents unfolded as the defendants cl aim in cont endi ng thatthey are ent it led to q ual ified i mmunity and w het her the ir actions can be said to h a ve b e e n o bjectively reason able und er those ci rc umstan ces . Indeed, the re asona ble ness of the u se o f deadly forc e tur ns enti re ly

on
w hic h v ersi on of the facts one ac cept s. Ac cordin g to the o ff ic ers, Pass ina ult ’s dec is ion toMu rra

y -R uh l v . Passin au lt No. 05-2607

- 12 - shootat Mu rray ’s tr uck w as re asona ble bec ause Mu rray drov e hi s t ru ck

di re ctl y at Pass ina ult , al most hitti ng the off ic er ( and i n a d is cred it e d v ersi on, a ctu all y hi tti ng Pa s s in a u lt ) and ref using to stop desp ite mu ltiple orde rs, then raced erratica lly tow ard Jenk ins , pos ing a s er iou s t hr eat o f dang er to that off ic er . Und er

the pla int iff’s v ersion of the fact s, how ev er , no reasonab ly co mpetent off ic er

w oul d hav e percei v ed dang er suffici ent t o j ust ify

sh ooti ng M ur ra y : M ur ra y w as not a im in g his tr uck at Pass ina ultbut rathe r try ing to leave the scene ; Passina ult orde red him to stop only one time , ope ning f ire
w it hout w ait ing for a respon se; Pas si naul t fired th e maj o rit y o f the bul let s o nly after the tr uck had already

tur ned aw ay from him; Je nki ns w as nev er i n dang er

of bei ng st ru ck ; and the o ff ic ers l ack ed probabl e cause to beli ev e that M ur ra y w as inv olv ed i n the co mmiss ion of an offense or

that he posed a t hreat t o any one. In g ra nti ng su mmary j udg ment t o the def end ant s, the district court simply fa iled to ackn owl edge th e co n f li cts in the p arties’ all eg ati ons of fact conc er nin g the re asona ble ness of P ass ina ult ’s act ion in ca usi ng Mu rray ’s deat h, i nst ead c re ditin g t h e d efendants’ v ersi on of the ev ents l eadi ng up t o Murray ’s deat h. In do ing so , t he d istrict court usurpe d the jury ’s fu nction , decid ing – in eff ect– t hat P ass ina ultco nti nued f ir ing past the need to do so out of fear or co ncer n rather t h a n anger or frust ration . Th e forme r, it seems to us, w ould be objectively reason able if tr ue; t he l atter

w oul d not

. Other Sixth Ci rc uitca ses i nv olv ing pol ic e s hooti ng s i n the co ntext of v ehi cul ar fli g ht
ar e hel pful i n ex amini ng w hether su mmary

j udg ment w as appropr iat e bas ed on the F our th Am end me nt’s objective reaso nab lene ss test. In Sm ith v

. C u p p , 4 3 0 F.3d 76 6 (6th Cir.Mu rra

y -R uh l v . Passin au lt No. 05-2607

- 13 - 2005) , an off ic er

named D unn s hot a nd k il led an a rrest ee w ho had g ain ed c ontrol of the off ic er ’s patrol car

w hen he left t he s uspect al one i n the v ehi cl e. Id. at 77 4. W e uphel d the district court’s den ial of qualif ied i mm unity based in part on o ur conclusio n tha t the suspe ct posed no t hreat o f dang er to the o ff ic er . Al thoug h Dun n cl aimed that he fire d at t he pat ro l car in self-defense as the vehicle accele rated tow ard him , a “ re a sona ble jury could conclu de th at Dun n did no t f ire as the vehicle w as be aring do w n on him in fear of his li fe . . . [ but rather

] t hat Dun n fire d as he ran to w ard the dr iv er si de of the car

after the car passe d him .” Id. Similarly , base d on the pla intif f ’s v ersion of

the disp ute d facts in this
cas e, a jur

y co uld co ncl ude t hat P ass ina ultco uld not re asona bly hav e bel iev ed that Mu rray prese nte d a da nger to him. Despite the of f icer’s claim to have fired upo n Murray ’s truck in sel f-defense, the p lai nti ff ’s v iew of the fact s a nd th e au to p sy repor t s ug g estthatthe major ity of the shot s, if not all , w ere fired by the off ic er

after the car had already

tur ned and
w as dr iv ing aw ay . Acc ordin g to t h e defendants , Pa ss ina ultac ted reason abl y i n s hooti ng M ur ra y becau se the t ru ck

co nst it uted a deadl y

w eapon t h a t p o sed a threat o f ser iou s p hy si cal h a r m n o to n l y

t o h i m s e l f

b u ta l s o t o J e n k i n s , o t h e r o f f i c e rs , a n d t h e g e n e ra l p u b l i c . W e hav e ac know led g ed th at “ a c ar ca n be a deadl y

w eapon.” Smit h v . F re lan d, 95 4 F .2d 3 43, 347 ( 6th C ir . 199 2)

. But, w e hav e al so hel d tha t “ [a]l thoug h thi s c ircui t’ s p re v iou s c ases g iv e s ubst anti al deferenc e to an officer ’s dec is ion to shoota un ar me d s uspect i n a c ar chas e, t he officer

musthav e a reason to bel iev e tha t th e c a r present s a n i mminent dang er .” C upp, 430 F .3d a t 7 7 5

. C ompar ing the si tuati on i n the presentca se to t hat o fMu rra

y -R uh l v . Passin au lt No. 05-2607

- 14 - tw o c ases cite d by

the dis tr ic t c our

t s ug g est s t hat P ass ina ultl ack ed s uff ic ien t reason to bel iev e tha t M ur ra y ’s tr uck pos ed s uch a threat. In t he firs t of t hose tw o cas es, Smit h v . Frela nd, 954 F. 2d 343 (6 th Ci r. 1992) , a pol ic e off ic er

sh ot an d k il led a man after a hi g h- speed ch ase. Atv ar iou s t imes dur ing the pursui t, tw o di ff er ent o ff ic ers h ad at tempted to s top t he s uspect by bl ock ing hi s c ar

w it h th e ir p a tr o l ca rs. Id . a t 3 4 4

. T wi c e t h e su sp e cteva d e d th e of f ice rs, na rro wly

m iss in g a col li si on w it h the patrol ca rs. Id

. Ult imat ely , how ev er , one of the o ff ic ers mana g ed to blo ck ade t he s uspec t w it h hi s p atrol car . Id. W hen t he office r e xite d h is v ehi cl e and approache d the ca r, how ev er , t he s uspect rev ersed, sp ed forw ard and cras hed i nto t he off ic er ’s patrol car , then rev ersed ag ain and proceed ed to dr iv e around t he pat ro l car . Id. W hile the suspe ct’s car w as z oom ing past the of f icer, he f ir e d h is g u n , killi ng the driv er. Id. I n t h e se c o n d o f

t h e two ca s e s r e li e d u p o n b y t h e d is t ri c tco u rt , S c o t tv. Cl a y Co u n t y, Tenness ee, 205 F.3d 867 (6th Ci r. 2000), pol ic e of ficers shot at a car inv olv ed in a hig hspeed ch ase and w ounded a pas seng er. T he c hase beg an w hen t he dr iv er di spl ay ed
er ra ti c d ri v ing , inc lud ing speed ing throug h a sto p si g n and nar ro w ly av oid ing a c oll is ion w it h
an u nm ar k ed po l i c e c ar . Id

. at 87 1- 72

. W i th th e po l i c e i n pu rs ui t, th e dr i v er en gaged in cond uct th at “pat ent ly

risked the ph y sical safety of civ ilian mo torists and ped e s trians, pursu ing patrolm en, [his] passe nger, and himse lf .” Id. at 87 2. Finally , the driv er lost cont ro l of his ca r and cra shed int o a g uard rail

. Id. A p ursui ng off ic er w ho th en approache d the veh ic le on foot had to jump out of the w ay w hen i t s uddenl y

ac cel eratedMu rra

y -R uh l v . Passin au lt No. 05-2607

- 15 - tow ard hi m. I d. Seei ng the v ehi cl e agai n race tow ard the publi c road w ay , t his off ic er fired his g un atthe car , w oundi ng the pass eng er . Id. at 87 2- 73. In bo th Frelan d an d Scot t, w e con clude d tha t the of f icers’ action s w ere reaso nab le und er the Fou rth Am end me nt’s objective reaso nab lene ss test. As we describe d the ir si tuati ons in Cup p: In bo th of

the s e c a s e s , t here w as no q uest ion th at th e liv es of the of f icers, or the liv es of

both the of

f icers and mem bers of

the pu blic in the area , w ere end angered bythe f leeing suspe cts. Each suspe ct dem ons t rated multip le ti mes t hat he e it h e r w as w il li ng to inj ure an off ic er thatg ot i n the w ay

of esc ape or

w as w il ling to persi st in extremely reck les s b ehav ior

that threa ten ed th e liv es of all those a roun d. T he o f f icers reacted wi t h dea dly force on ly

af ter an e xt e n d ed int eractio n be tw een police an d the suspe ct proved tha t the suspe ct w as likely to continu e to threate n the liv es of those around hi m in hi s a ttemptto esc ape. 430 F .3d a t 775

. In c ontrastto Frela nd and Sco tt, the pla int iff’s v ersi on of the facts in the pr esent cas e pr esent s a s it uati on i n w hic h the re is a q uest ion reg ardin g w hether the off ic er coul d re a s o n a b l y h a v e b e l i e v e d t h a t a n y o n e ’ s l i fe w a s e n d a n g e r e d b y M u r ra y a s he attempt ed to flee in his tr uck

. Here, Pass ina ult did not hav e a p ro lon g ed i nteract ion w it h Murray in w hich he dem onst rate d a w illing ness to harm an of f icer or engage in reckless beh a vior

. I n fact, ex amini ng the pla int iff’s s tatementof the fact s, w e w oul d hav e to conclu de that Passinau lt lacked any reaso n to be liev e tha t he would harm anyone in his attemptto dr iv e aw ay

from t he area. Therefore, ba sed on th e pl ain ti ff ’s v e rsi o n of the fac ts , a j ur

y c ou l d fi nd t ha t no rea s on ab l y c om pe te nto ffic er

w ou l d ha v e s ho t th e v i c ti m, thus sa ti sfy ing the firs t prong i n Sauc ier ’s tw o- prong ed q ual ified i mmunity anal y si s.Mu rra

y -R uh l v . Passin au lt No. 05-2607

- 16 - Wa s the Right Clear ly Establis hed? O n c e itis e s t a b li s h e d t h a tP a s s in a u ltvio la t e d Mu rr a y’s co n s t it u t io n a l r ig h t s , t h e n e xt ste p i n Sauc ier

v . Ka tz’s t wo-p rong ed q ual ified i mmunity anal y si s a sk s w hether the
cons ti tuti onal r ig ht ati ss ue w as cl ear ly es tabl is hed. The pur pose of this i nq uir y i s t o deter mine “w hether it w oul d be cl ear to a reason abl e off ic er thathi s c onduc t w as unl awful in the situatio n he conf ronte d.” Saucie r v . Katz, 5 33 U.S. 194 , 202 (20 01). “If th e law did not p ut t he officer

on n oti ce that his co nductw oul d be cl ear ly unlawful, s ummary

j udg ment based on q ual ified i mmunity i s a ppropr iat e.” I d. In respon se to the defendants’ moti on for q ual ified immuni ty , the pla int iff arg ued t hat her son ’s ri ght to be f ree f rom e x cessive fo rce and u nrea sona ble seizure w as “clearly est abl is hed” su ch that Pass ina ultsh oul d hav e k now n that cont inu ing to fire needl ess ly at the t ru ck

v iol ated Mu rray ’s F our th A mendment r ig hts

. The di str ic t c our t hel d to the cont ra ry , how ev er , bas ed on it s d eter minat ion th a t the r ig ht as ser ted b y the pla int iff w as a “ broad g eneral proposi ti on” and thus not p arti cul ar iz ed enou g h to put a reason abl e off ic er on not ic e i n the sp eci fic fact ual co ntext of thi s c ase. Al thoug h the “ cl ear ly

es tabl is hed” prong of

the Sauc ier

anal y si s g enerall y

req uires that the r ig ht al leg edl y

vi ola ted be def ine d speci fical ly , the Supreme Cour t has recog niz ed that “i n an obv iou s c ase” i nv o lvin g the use of deadl y forc e, t he g eneral sta ndards est abl is hed i n Tennes see v . G ar ner and Graham v . C onnor are s uff ic ien t t o putan o ff ic erMu rra

y -R uh l v . Passin au lt No. 05-2607

- 17 - on not ic e tha t hi s c onduc t v iol ates the Four th Amendment. Se e Bross eau v . H aug en, 5 43 U.S. 19 4, 19 9 ( 2 0 0 4 ) (per cu ri am ) ( “in an ob v ious case , the se stan dard s can ‘clearly est abl is h’ the a n swer ev en w it hout a body of re lev ant c ase law ”)

. Acc ordin g to the defendants, how ev er , t his i s n ot “ an obv iou s c ase” in w hic h Gar ner and Graham prov ide a “ cl ear ly

es tabl is hed” r ig ht. R ather , t hey arg ue, B ro ss eau re qui re s u s t o hol d tha t t he off ic ers i n thi s s it uati on di d notv iol ate a cl ear ly es tabl is hed r ig ht. In B ro ss eau, the C our

t ex amined v ar iou s c ases i nv olv ing pol ic e s hooti ng s i n the cont ext of v ehi cul ar

fli g ht an d c oncl uded t hat thes e c ases “ by no mean s ‘ cl ear ly

es tabl is h’ th a t [the off ic er ’s ] c onduc t v iol ated the F our th A mendment.” 543 U .S. at 20 1. Al th o u gh at first blu sh, Bross eau s eems t o be on poi nt, the S ixth C ircui t recent ly di sti ng uis hed t hat hol din g i n a c ase w it h facts si mil ar to the p re sentca se. In Smith v . C upp, w e hel d tha t “Brossea u v . Haugen does not preclud e this court from f inding the rig ht atissue w as clearly est abl is hed bec ause the B ro ss eau C our t s aid thatundi sput ed f a ct s show ed th at t he shoot ing off ic e r b e lie ved the s uspect had a g un and w as fearful for off ic ers i n the immedi ate a re a.” 430 F .3d 7 66, 7 76 ( 6th C ir . 200 5)

. In cont ra st to t he dang e ro us si tuati on i n Bross eau, in Cu pp w e found that there w as “no comparab le ev ide nce that [the off ic er] had cause to beli ev e that [the suspe ct] posed an immedi ate ri sk of deat h or se ri ous dang er” and t herefore c oncl uded t hat “ Gar ner , by i tse lf, c lea rl y

e st a bli shes the ri g ht at is sue. ” Id. Si mil ar ly , under

the pla int iff’s v ersi on of the facts, a reason abl e j ur y co uld co ncl ude that Mu rray

pos ed no dang er

to the o ff ic ers o r the g eneral publ ic

. W hen t he s uspect pos esMu rra

y -R uh l v . Passin au lt No. 05-2607

- 18 - no i mmediat e r is k o f death or ser iou s dang er , Bross eau does not cont ro l and Tennes see
v . G ar ner

prov ide s a “ cl ear ly

es tabl is hed” r ig ht t hat ful fill s t he second prong of the q ual ified imm unity analysis. Di d Jenk in s’s C on du ct Viola te a Constitut ional Right? Unde r well- esta blished S ixth Circuit pre cede nt, a police of f icer m ay be resp onsib le for a not her of

f icer’s use of

ex cessive fo rce if th e of f icer “( 1) actively

participat ed in th e use of ex ces si v e forc e, (2) super v is ed th e off ic er

w ho us ed ex ces si v e forc e, or ( 3) ow ed th e
v ic ti m a duty of protec ti on ag ain st the u se of ex ces si v e forc e.” Tur ner v . Sc ott, 119 F. 3d 425 , 429 (6th Cir. 1997). Obviously , neith er of the f irst tw o cate gories applies to Jenkins, butthe th ird is pot ent ially app licable. In Bruner v . Duna w ay, 684 F.2d 422 , 426 (6th Cir. 1982) , for ex ample , we hel d tha t pol ic e off ic ers w ho s tood by and did noth ing w hil e the pla int iff w as beaten by

other off ic ers coul d be hel d l iab le under § 19 83. See al so Dur ham
v . N u’ M a n , 9 7 F

. 3 d 8 6 2 , 8 6 6
- 6 8 ( 6 t h C i r . 1 9 9 6 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t q u a l i fi e d i mm u n i t y w as improper for a se cur ity

off ic er and a nurse w ho w it ness ed th e beat ing of a s hack led pati ent but d id not t ry

to sto p i t)

. In g eneral, a pol ic e off ic er

w ho fail s to act t o prev ent t he us e of ex ces si v e forc e may be hel d l iab le w hen ( 1) the off ic er obs er v ed or had re ason to k now that ex ces si v e forc e w oul d be or w as bei ng us ed, a nd (2) the off ic er had both the oppor tuni ty and the mean s t o prev ent t he har m from oc cur ri ng . Turner , 119 F .3d a t 429

.Mu rra

y -R uh l v . Passin au lt No. 05-2607

- 19 - Beca use the fact s here establ is h tha t J enki ns lac ked suffici ent t ime to act t o prev ent Pass ina ult ’s us e of ex ces si v e forc e, s ummary j udg ment w as appropr iat e. Pass ina ultfired tw elve shots in rapid succession atMurray ’s truck. Ev en if Jenkins was i mm edia tely able to per cei v e w hat w as happeni ng once the firs t shot w as fire d, he w oul d not hav e had enoug h ti me to actto sto p Passi naul t f ro m shoot ing

. In at leastone unpubl is hed opi nio n, the S ixth C ircui t has found no duty to int er v ene w here, as here, “ an ent ire i nci dent unfolds ‘i n a matter of s econd s.’ ” Ontha v . R uther ford C ounty , Tenn., 222 Fed. Appx . 498 , 506 ( 6th Cir. 2007). See also Gau drea ult v . Municipality of Sale m, 923 F.2d 203 , 207 n.3 (1st Cir. 199 0) (“A police of

f icer canno t be he ld liable for failing to i nte rcede if he h as no ‘realistic oppor tuni ty ’ to prev ent a n attac k” ); O’ Nei ll v . Kr z emins ki , 839 F .2d 9 , 11- 12 ( 2d C ir . 198 8) (“ This w as not a n epi sode of suff ic ien t durati on to su ppor t a conc lus ion thatan o ff ic er w ho sto od by w it hout tr

y ing to ass is t the v ic ti m beca me a t aci t c oll aborator”)

. Addi ti onal ly , t he conclu sion th at sum ma ry ju dgme nt is p rope r for Je nkins is reinforced bythe pla intif f ’s lack of strenuous effort t o mai ntai n her cl aims ag ain st thi s d efendant. CO NC LU SION For the re asons se t outabov e, w e AFFI RM the ju dg ment of the dis tr ic t c our t i n fav or of Jenk ins , R EVER SE t he j udg ment of the dis tr ic t c our t i n fav or

of Pas sin a u lt , and RE MA ND the cas e for further proceed ing s w it h respect t o Pas si naul t.Mu rra

y -R uh l v . Passin au lt No. 05-2607

- 20 -

BOGGS, Chie f Judge , concurri ng in the ju dgment. Al thoug h I ag re e tha t there are tr iab le is sues of fact mater ial to th e q uest ion of Off ic er Pas si naul t’ s q ual ified imm unity, and thus th at th e district court erred in g rantin g sum ma ry judgme nt to him on th is b a s i s , I w r i t e s e p a r a t e l y b e c a u s e I c o n s i d e r

t h e ra n g e o f ma t erial dis putes to be
cons ide ra bly

nar ro w er

than does the major ity . I full y agree w it h the maj or ity ’s anal y si s o f O f f ic e r J e n k in s ’s qu a li f ie d im m u n it y.

I T h e co u rt ’s o p in io n a p p e a rs t o c o n c e d e t h a t , a t m o s t , O f f ic e r P a s s in a u ltm ig h th a ve be en e nt i tl ed t o q ua l i fi ed i mmu ni ty i f he “ ha d fi r ed a s i ng l e s ho t as [ M ur ray ’ s ] tr uc kc am e at hi m.” M aj. Op. at 11. It conc lud es, how ev er , t hat h is su b seque nt s hots ca n onl y be
ev alu ated for re asona ble ness after answ er ing the (d is puted) factual q uest ion w hether he, his par tner , or the g eneral publ ic w ere in fact in dang er . But thi s q uest ion i s, as a matt er of law , i mmater ial to the q ual ified i mmunity anal y si s: w e l ook not t o w hether , i n retrospec t, Mu rray present ed an actual dang er , butw hether , i n the co ntext of unfoldi ng ev ents , O ff ic er Pass ina ultco uld hav e re asona bly per cei ved a dange r. See G ra hamv. C onnor , 490 U .S. 386 , 396 (1989 ). In this lig ht, th e factu al dispu tes con cerning, e.g., w hatMurray ’s int enti ons w er e w hen he sta rt ed his tr uck i n the di re cti on of the off ic ers; how many ti mes Passin ault o rdered Murray to stop ; and w het her Of f icer Jenkins w as in fact in the direct path of the tr uck

and in dang er

of bei ng st ru ck , are al l ir re lev ant.Mu rra

y -R uh l v . Passin au lt No. 05-2607

The c ourt states that th e “r ec o rd fails to establish the offic er’ s prec ise location whe n the 2 truck lef t tire marks on the pave ment,” and that “it is possi ble, base d on the evidenc e in the re cord, that th e tr uc k did not be g in to lose c ontr ol an d rot ate untilMurr ay tur ne d th e wh e e l in

orde r t o avo id hitting Passinault.” (Maj. Op. at 3 n.1). The relevanc e of the first statement appe ars to be be lied by the re cord: the f

orensic r eport, whic h Murra y-Ruhl offer s no basis to doubt, indicates that, a s quoted above, Mur

ray ’s truck’ s tires wer e spinnin g, and that the truc k “rotated”–not swe rved–in a c ounte rc lockw is e di rec tio n whe n it wa s n e ar P a ssi na

ult . A ft e r m ome nta

ri ly str a ighte nin gout, i t
“ sta rt e d to yaw in a clo c kw ise dir e c tio n. ” Th e c on c lus ion that Mur ra y wa s out of

c ontr ol i n c los e pr oximi ty to Pas sin a

ult do e s not depe nd

in a ny wa y on kn ow ing thelatte r’ s pre c iselocation, g iven that his ge nera l location–in a re latively bounded ar ea–is undisputed. The SupremeCourt has rec ently reminded us that, in the context of summary judgme nt, not a ll f a c tu a l d is p ute s

– e v e n mate r ia l o n e s

– ar e “ g e nu in e , ” wh e r e a b ar e a s s e rti o n b y th e non-moving party is “so utterly

discredited by

the re cord that no rea sonable jury could have believed him.” Sc ott v . H arris , 127 S. Ct. 1769, 1776 (2007). Thus, howeve r m any times Murray-Ruhl asserts as a fac t that there was no ba sis for Passinault to be in fea r of se rious injury , th e re co rd i ndicates unambiguously

that Murra

y ’s truck pa ssed within eigh t fe et o f Passinault (at a point whe re

- 21 - T here is no disput e, as th e court acknowledges, Maj. Op. at 5, that M urray’ s truck passe d w ithi n e ig h tf e e t of Passina ult, in a con f ined space . How ever, there is also undi sput ed foren si c e v ide n ce o f t ire mark s o n the sc ene, w hic h, ac cordin g to the s tate police crash reco nstruct ion, “indicate d tha t the v ehicle was being rapidly accelerat ed a s it entered th e park ing lot f ro m the g ra ss area. T he tire marks show ed dist inct ev ide nce that th e re a r t i r e s w e r e s p i n n i n g b e c a u s e o f h e a vy a c c e l e ra t i o n . T h e a c c e l e ra t i o n c o n t inu ed for approx imat ely

3 5 ’ whe re the v ehi cl e beg an to l ose cont ro l as itrotate d i n a c ounter cl o ck wis e di re cti on.” J A 111- 12. W hatev er the act ual dang er

M ur ra y present ed, t he
cour t’ s a ss erti on th at “ the off ic ers l ack ed probabl e c ause to be li ev e tha t M ur ra y . . . pos ed a threa t to an y one ,” Maj. Op. at 12 , is inconsisten t w ith the und ispute d fact th at, while approachi ng Pas si n a u l t w it hin ei g ht feet, Mu rray w as acc ele ra ti ng enoug h to caus e hi s t ires to s pin and to l ose cont ro l of his tr uck

. An d the re appears t o b e n o d isp u te thatOfficer 2Mu rra

y -R uh l v . Passin au lt No. 05-2607

Pa ssi na ult ’s re tr e at w a s b loc ke d b y thepo le ba

rn), that it wa s b e inga c c e le ra

te d r a pidly e no ugh to c a us e its tir e s to sp in, and that it w a s f ishta ili ng . Mur

ra y-R uh l do e s n ot disp utewi th a ny sp e c if ic ity the validity

of these f

oren s i c fi n d i n g s. And under thoseconditions–a ca r at lea st partially

out of control, hea ding in his direc tion, coming within eight fee t–it w as objectively rea sonable for P a s s i n a u l tt o f e ar f o r h i s s a f e ty. Th e se c on d a sse rt ion

is, a s d isc us se d b e low , s imp ly ir re le va nt t o th e quali fi ed immun ity analysis. Mu rr ay ’s ac tu al i ntentions are not the obje ct of our inquiry : even if w e cr edit the unsupported supposition that Murray was in fa ct virtuously

attempting to av oid theof fi c e r, theon ly rele vant qu e s ti o n is wh e th e r a r e a s o n a b le o f f ic e r un d e r th e c irc ums ta

n c e s c o u ld h av e p e r c eived a l i k e l i h o o d

o f s e r i o u s i n

j ur y.

- 22 - Jenk ins w as further

along the g eneral path of Mur ra y ’s tr uck : ag ain , reg ardle ss of w hether the t ru ck w oul d hav e ac tual ly

st ru ck Je nki ns and w hether

Je nki ns at the ti me percei v ed a likelihood of

dan ger to himself , w e can nots ay tha t no rea sona ble of f icer in Passinau lt’s circumstan c es c ou l d ma k e th e s pl i t- s ec on d j ud g me nt th at a ne ar by fel l ow offi c er w as in dang er of ser iou s i nju ry . The cour t emphas iz es Mur ra y -R uhl ’s alle g ati on th at P ass ina ultdi d not in fact fear for hi s o w n s afetyor

thatof Jenk ins

. Ma

j. Op. at 11, 1 2. Aga in , th o u gh this may be a factu al ma tter in dispu te, i t is not ma terial to th e question of q ualif ied imm unity, w hich is
conce rned only w ith the obje ctiv e reaso nab lene ss of the of f icer’s actions, a nd n ot w ith his subj ect iv e s tate of mind. See Harlow v. Fitz gera ld , 457 U. S. at 817- 18 (“ [B]a re al leg ati ons of mali ce should n ot s uff ic e” to ov er come q ual ified i mmunity w here the off ic er ’s ac ti ons
w er e obj ect iv ely

reason abl e.) ; Sm it

h v. C upp , 430 F. 3d 766, 771 n.1 (6 th Ci r. 2005) ( “A n of f icer’s ev il i nte ntion s will not m ake a Fourth Am end me nt vi olatio n ou t of an objectively
re a so n a b le u se o f

fo rce .” ) (ci ti n g United S tates v. Rob ins on , 414 U.S

. 218 , 235 -36 (197 6)).Mu rra

y -R uh l v . Passin au lt No. 05-2607

- 23 - Si mil ar ly , th e c o u rtappears t o c oncl ude t hat M ur ra y -R uhl ’s as ser ti on th at M ur ra y traveled toward the of

f icers becau se, w ith his truck bein g oth erw ise blocke d in, it w as his
o n l y o p t i o n , c o n s t i tutes a ma t e ria l dispu te of fact. Maj. Op. a t 13. On the con trary , in addi ti on to bei ng w ro ng as a mat ter of log ic( surely Mu rray

had the o pti on of st ay ing put or submi tti ng to the o ff ic ers) , the subj ect iv e int ent of t he v ic ti m–unav ail abl e to t he officers w ho
m u s tm a k e a s p li t -s e c o n d j u d gm e n t

– is i rr e le va n tt o t h e q u e s t io n wh e t h e r h is a c t io n s ga ve rise to a reaso nab le percep tion o f dan ger. Mu rray -R uhl ’s asser

ti ons that M ur ra y

did not in fact endang er the off ic ers o r any one els e, an d tha t Pa ss ina ultdi d not i n f actbel iev e he or Je nki ns w ere i n dang er , are not dis putes mate ria l to t he q uest ion of q ual ified i mmunity

. If they w ere, an y

pl ain ti ff i n an ex ces si v e us e of force cl aim coul d defeat s ummary j udgm e n t on q ual ified i mmunity g ro u n d s s i mp l y b y a s s e rt i n g a s a fa c t t h a t t h e d e fe n d a n t d i d n o t h a v e a r eq uis it e reaso nab le state of min d, or tha t the v ictim, in hind sight, did not in fact prese nt a da nger. On th e con trary , the q uest ion of q ualif ied imm unity is a question o f la w thatdep end s only on obj ect iv e reason abl eness , noton a ctu al dang er or subj ect iv e sta te of mi nd. See B ar re tt v. Steu ben ville City Schs. , 388 F.3d 96 7, 97 0 (6th C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ). Accordingly , Passina ult’s
us e o f f o rc e w hile Murray

w as ap proa ching him an d w as mo v ing i n the v icinity of w here O f f ic e r J e n k in s wa s p la u s ib ly l o c a t e d sh o u ld b e p ro t e c t e d b y qu a li f ie d im m u n it y. There do, h ow ev er , remain m ate rial dis putes of f act . The pla int iff asser ts that the shotthatki ll ed M ur ra y w as fire d w ell after

hi s t ru ck

ha d p a ss ed bot h Pas si naul t and Jenk ins , w hen t he tr uck w as tur nin g onto a pu bli c road. A t th is poi nt i n the unfoldi ngMu rra

y -R uh l v . Passin au lt No. 05-2607

- 24 - ev ents , Pa ss ina ultpresu mably could not hav e had a reason abl e bel ief tha t he or Je nki ns cont inue d to be in danger, an d his claim of q ualif ied im m u n it y h in ges on w het her a
reaso nab le of

f icer unde r the circumst anc es w ould have perceived Murray as a likely dang er to members of the publi c o r other off ic ers w ho mi g ht be ar ri v ing on t he s cene. Al thoug h our cas es hav e aff ir med g ra nts of q ual ified i mmunity on t his bas is , ev en after the d a n ge r to t h e o f

f ic e rs t h e m s e lve s h a d p a s s e d , t h e re a s o n a b le n e s s in s u c h a co n t e xt depends on w hether

the behav ior

of the v ic ti m had been eg re g iou s enoug h to suppo rta reaso nab le belief

thathe con stitute d a con tinue d threa t to oth ers. Thus, in Sm it

h v. Fr ela nd , 954 F.2d 34 3 (6th Cir. 199 2), the v ictim, by engaging in
a high-spee d cha se an d crashing his v ehicle int o a po lice patrol car, ha d sho w n him self dang erous enoug h to suppo rtsu ch a reason abl e bel ief. In Scott v. Cl ay Cou nty, 205 F .3d 867 ( 6th C ir . 200 0) , t he fleei ng vi cti m had patentl y ex press ed a w il li ng ness to endang er by sta nder s a s w e l l a s p o l i c e , a n d a ft e r c ra s h i n g i n t o a g u a rd ra i l w a s h e a d i n g t o w a rd a hig hw ay w hen t he officer

us ed dead ly

forc e. Id. At 872- 73. And in Br oss eau v

. Haugen , 543 U .S. 194 ( 2004) , t he Sup re me C our t uphel d a g ra nt of q ual ified immuni ty for an officer
w ho sh o t a s u spec t w ho had been i nv olv ed i n a fig ht, fled to a J eep w hen t he officer atte mp ted to intervene, and , desp ite the of f icer’s attem pt to reach into the vehicle to secu re the k ey s, w as abl e to sta rt the eng ine and beg in mov ing forw ard. Al thoug h the off ic er w as t o t h e si d e o f t h e ve h ic le a n d t h u s n o t h e rs e lf in a n y d a n ge r, t h e re wa s re a s o n t o b e li e ve the v ic ti m had a g un in the v ehi cl e, and she clai med to be “fearful for the other off ic ers o n foot w ho [s he] b eli ev ed w ere i n the immedi ate area, [and] for the occ upi ed v ehi cl es in [theMu rra

y -R uh l v . Passin au lt No. 05-2607

- 25 - v ictim’s] p a t h a n d f o r a n y othe r citiz ens who might be in th e area .” Id. at 197 ( int er nal quotat ion m arks and citation s omitt ed). On t he ot her

hand , we h av e refused to find q ual ified i mmunity i n s omew hat
ana logous situa tions, b ut w here t he action s o f t he victim did notg iv e rise to a reaso nab le bel ief tha t his flig ht present ed a ri sk of ha rm to ot hers i n the area. In Sm it h v . C upp , t he
v ic ti m had be en ar re ste d for maki ng harass ing tel ephone cal ls , and w as in the b ack of the off ic er ’s r unni ng patrol car w hil e the off ic er

spoke w it h a w re ck er

dr iv er w ho had ar ri v ed to impoun d the v ic ti m’s ca r. The v ic ti m used thi s o ppor tuni ty to mov e to the d ri v er ’s se at of the p atrol car

and attemptto flee. W e o b se rved that, w hereas in Fr ela nd and Scott

the
v ic ti ms had cl ear ly

displ ay ed their

w il li ng ness to endang er the li v es of by sta nders d ur ing
an extended int eract ion w it h the pol ic e, t he v icti m in thatca se had noti ndi sput abl y done so, precl udi ng q ual ified i mmunity on s ummary

j udg ment. The facts in th is ca se t o fall i nto t he area betw een Cupp on t he one hand an d Fr ela nd , Scott , and Br

oss eauon the othe r. W hile Murray d oes notapp ear, on anyone’s
v ersi on of the facts, to hav e been as cl ear a dang er as the v ic ti ms i n the l atter ca ses ( or at l east Fr

ela nd and Scott ), nei ther

does he appear

to hav e been as unthreateni ng as the
v ic ti m in Cupp , insofar as Murray ’s actions did , at the v eryleast, giv e rise to a rea sona ble fear tha t he w as a dan ger to the liv es of the of f icers on the scene , som eth ing the v ictim in Cupp nev er

di d. Thus, the q uest ion w hether Pas si naul t w as re asona ble i n c onti nui ng to fire on M ur ra y ’s tr uck

out of fear

for t he s afetyof others i n the area d e pends l arg ely on
w hether M ur ra y ’s behavior up to thatpoi nt g av e r is e to a reason abl e bel ief tha t heMu rra

y -R uh l v . Passin au lt No. 05-2607

The c ourt, in its dis cussion of Freland, Sc ott , and Cupp , sug g ests that in this case “the re is 3 a qu e sti on re g ardingwh e the r a

nyon e ’s lif

e wa s end ang e re d by Murr ay a s he atte mpt e d to f le e in h is tr uc k. ” Ma j. Op
. at 15
. Ag a in, thi s is mis dir e c te d: the qu e sti on is no t wh e the r anyon e wa s in fact enda n ger ed , b ut whether an off icer in Passinault’s shoes could have reasonably perc eive d such e nd ang e rm e nt.

- 26 - pr esent ed the req uis it e lev el of dang er . This , in tur n, depends on the answ ers t o a n umber of fact ual q uest ion s i n di sput e, s uch as how fast, and how

reck les sl y , M ur ra y

had been trave ling, both w hen he w as in the v ic ini ty of the o ff ic ers a nd w hen he had pas sed them and w as he adin g into th e pu blic roadway ; how much tim e ha d e la p s e d b etween his
e n d a n ge rm e n to f

t h e o f f ic e rs a n d h is e n t ry i n t o t h e p u b li cro a d wa y; a n d wh a tb a s is , i f a n y, might ha v e sup porte d a be lief thatothe rs w ere likely

to be in th e pa th of

dan ger. 3 In s um, th oug h I ag re e w it h the co urts’ s rev ersal of summar y judg ement in fav or

of Off ic er Pas si naul t, I w oul d hol d that the mater ial factual di sput es neces sar y to re sol v e the q uest ion of his q ual ified i mmunity are c onsi derabl y

nar ro w er

than sug g est ed by

the opi nio n, an d, i n par

ti cul ar , q uest ion s a bout the act ual dang er Mu rray pos ed, o r the s tate of mind of Officer

Pas si naul t and M ur ra y hi msel f, are i rrele v ant t o i ts re sol uti on.