## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e21,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT D ELI SE G RA V ES; J ER RY G RA V ES, I ndi vi dual l yand as Per s onal R epresent at i ves of

Jerred G raves, dece as ed, P l ai nti ffs - A pp el l ants , v. K E R M I T T H O M A S, I ndi vi dual l yand i n hi s offi ci al capa ci t yas C hi ef of P o lice o f

th e C ityo f

H a sk e ll, O k lah o m a ; JO S H F O R D , In d iv id u a lly and i n hi s O ffi ci al C apac i t yas Pol i ce O ffice r o f

th e C ityo f

H a sk e ll, O kl ahoma, D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees. N o. 05- 7084

A ppeal from t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t ri ct C ourt fo r t h e Ea s t e r n Di s t r i c t o f Ok l a h o ma ( D. C. No . 0 4 - CI V- 4 7 8 - W H) M ar t ha J . C herbi ni ( A l ber tR . M atthew s and J ul i etN . B r ennan w i th heron the bri efs) B on ds & M at t hew s L aw F i rm P L L C , M usko gee, O klahom a, for Plai nti ffs - A pp el l ants . Be t t yOu t h i e rW i l l i a ms , Ga g e & W i l l i a ms , M u s k o g e e , Ok l a h o ma , a n d S c o t tB. W oo d, W oo d, P uh l & W oo d, P . L . L . C . , T uls a, O klahom a, for D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees.-2-

B efor e KEL LY , M c KAY and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. O’ BRI EN , C i r cui tJ udge.

Je rre d G ra v e s w a s k ill e d w h e n h e lo st c o n tro l o f h is v e h icle w h ile try in g to el ude pol i ce offi cerJ os h For d atni ghton countryr oads atveryhi gh r at es of s peed. H i s par ent s , D el i s e and J erryG r aves , br oughtan ac t i on agai ns tFor d and P o lice C h ief

K e rm it T h o m a s o f

th e H a sk e ll, O k lah o m a P o lice D e p a rtm e n t, bo th i ndi vi dual l yand i n t hei roffi ci al capa ci t i es , pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983. T hey cl ai m O ffi cer Ford’s del i berat e and un w arr anted i nit i at i on of a h i gh speed c hase re su lti n g in Je rre d ’s d e a th w a s a v io latio n o f Je rre d ’s F o u rth a n d F o u rte e n th A m endmentr i ght s . T he di s t r i ctcourtconcl uded no cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on occurr ed and gr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof al l defe ndant s . E xer ci s i ng j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , we AFF I RM . I . St andar d of R evi ew W e re v iew th e d istric t co u rt' s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t de novo . D ubbs v. Head Star t, Inc. , 3 3 6 F .3 d 1 1 9 4 , 1 2 0 1 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is appr opr i at e “i f the pl eadi ngs , depos i t i ons , ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es , and admi s s i ons on fi l e, t ogetherw i t h the affi davi t s , i f any , s how t hatt her e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand thatt he movi ng par tyi s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) . I n appl y i ng thi s s t andar d,-3-

“w e exa m i ne the r ecor d and anyr eas onabl e i nfer ence s dr aw n ther efr om i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he non- m ovi ng party . ” D ubbs , 336 F. 3d at1201. I n r es pons e t o t he G r aves ’ cl ai m s agai ns tthem i n thei ri ndi vi dual capa ci t i es , O ffi cerFor d and C hi ef Thom as as s er t ed a de fens e of qua l i fi ed im m u n ity . T h is de fe n se sh iel d s g o v ern m en t officials pe rfo rm ing d iscreti o n ary funct i ons fr om l i abi l i t y“i f thei rconductdoes notvi ol at e cl ear l yes t abl i s hed r i ght s of w hi ch a r eas onabl e governm entoffi ci al w oul d have know n. ” P er ezv. Uni f i ed G ov’ tof

W yandot t e C ount

y/ Kans as C i t

y, Kan. , 4 3 2 F .3 d 1 1 6 3 , 1 1 6 5 (1 0 th C i r . 2005) . W hethera defendanti s ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni tyi s a tw o- s t ep p ro c e s s . Si eger tv. G i l l ey, 500 U . S. 226, 232 ( 1991) . Fi r s t , w e mustdet erm i ne w hetherPl ai nt i ffs “ha[ ve] as s ert ed a vi ol at i on of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ghtatal l . ” Id. a t 2 3 2 ; se e Mo o re v . G u th rie , 4 3 8 F . 3 d 1 0 3 6 , 1 0 4 0 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) . I f s o , we d e c id e w h e th e r “ th a t rig h t w a s c lea rlye sta b lish e d su c h th a t a r e a so n a b le p e rso n in t he defendant ' s pos i t i on w oul d have know n that[hi s ] conductvi ol at ed thatr i ght . ” C hrist i an sen v. C i t

y of Tuls a , 332 F. 3d 1270, 1278 ( 10th C i r . 2003) ( ci t at i on o m itt e d ). “[ W ]e n e e d n o t re a c h th e q u e stio n o f w h e th e r th e in d iv id u a l d e fe n d a n ts ar e ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni t yi f w e det erm i ne, aft era de novo r evi ew , that pl ai nt i ffs fai l ed t o s uffi ci ent l yal l ege the vi ol at i on of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” Id . T he G r aves ’ cl ai m agai ns tO ffi cerFor d and C hi ef Thom as i n thei roffi ci al capa ci t i es i s actual l ya cl ai m agai ns tthe t ow n of H as kel l ( H as kel l ) . T heyal l ege H a sk e ll’s fa ilu re to a d e q u a telytra in a n d d isc ip lin e O ffice r F o rd c o n trib u ted to h is“C L E E T ” i s t he ac r onym forO kl ahoma’ s “C ounci l on L aw E nfor cement 1 Ed u c a t i o n a n d Tr a i n i n g , ” wh i c h c e r t i fi e s t h e ma n d a t o rye d u c a t i o n fo rOk l a h o ma law e n fo rc e m e n t o ffice rs. O ffice r F o rd w a s e m p lo y e d w ith th e M u sk o g e e C o u n ty Sher i ff’ s O ffi ce f

r om J ul y26, 1999, t hr ough N ovember3, 2000. H e compl et ed hi s C L E E T t r ai ni ng on Sept ember7, 2000. -4- e a g e rn e ss to e n g a g e in th e h ig h -sp e e d c h a se . H o w e v e r, as a m u n icip a lity , H a sk e ll w ill n o t b e h e ld lia b le u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 s o le ly b e c a u s e its e m p lo y e e s in flic te d inju ry. Monel lv. D ep'tof

Soci alSer vs . of

the C i t y of New York, 436 U . S. 658, 694 ( 1978) . R ather , t o es t abl i s h m uni ci pal l i abi l i ty , a pl ai nt i ff musts how : 1) the exi s t ence of a muni ci pal pol i cyorcus t om and 2) a di r ectcaus al l i nk betw een the p o lic yo r c u s to m a n d th e inju ry a lle g e d . C i t y of C an t on , O hio v. Harris, 48 9 U. S. 37 8, 38 5 (198 9). W hen t he clai m i s a fai l ure t o act, the p l ai nti ff m ust d e m o n stra te th e m u n icip a lity ' s in a c tio n w a s th e re su lt o f “ ‘d e lib e ra te i ndi ffe r ence ’ t o t he r i ght s of i t s i nhabi t ant s . ” Id. a t 3 8 9 . In a d d itio n , a m uni ci pal i t ym aynotbe hel d l i abl e w her e ther e w as no under l y i ng cons t i tut i onal v io la tio n b ya n yo f

its o ffic e rs . C i t

y of Los A ng el es v. Hel l er, 475 U . S. 796, 799 (1 9 8 6 ). I I . B ackgr ound Ha s k e l l , Ok l a h o ma , i s a s ma l l t o wn o f a p p r o x i ma t e l y2 , 0 0 0 p e o p l e . On N ovember6, 2000, J os h For d w as hi r ed as a pol i ce offi cerupon the r ecomm endat i on of Pol i ce Chi ef Thom as . O ffi cerFor d w as C L E E T cert i fi ed at t he t i m e he w as hi r ed and ha d pr evi ous l yw or ked as a deputys her i ff forthe M usko gee C ou nty S heri ff’s O ffi ce. N ot l on g afterF ord beg an w orki ng as a 1L or i M cV ay , C har l es G i nn’ s m other , t es t i fi ed thats he and he rhus band 2 compl ai ned t o C hi ef Thom as aboutt hi s har as s m entof the l ocal boy s . H erhus band t o l d C h i e f

T h o m a s : “ T h i s i s g o i n g t o k e e p o n a n d , yo u k n o w , o n e o f t h e s e b o ys [is] go ing to g et kill ed . S o m ethin g is go ing to h ap p en . ” (A p p x . at 38 4 -85 . ) -5- patr ol m an, s om e of the ci t i zens of H as kel l beca m e conc erned w i th hi s zea l ous enfor cementof H as kel l ’ s t r aff i c l aw s . I n par t i cul ar , s om e par ent s of the l ocal y out h compl ai ned thatO ffi cerFor d w as har as s i ng the t eena ger s i n t ow n by fol l ow i ng t hem w i t h hi s headl i ght s off a nd engagi ng i n hi gh- s peed c has es out s i de hi s j ur i s di ct i on. Par adoxi cal l y , the r ecor d i s devoi d of anyevi dence of par ent al 2 at t em pts t o restrai n thei r t eenag ers . Itap p ea rs on e o f O fficer F o rd’s fav o ri te t arg ets w as C h arles G inn (G inn ), J err ed G r aves ’ bes tfr i end. G i nn dr ove hi s m other ’ s 1996 s i l verFi r ebi r d w i th t he l i cens e pl at e “LO R R I . ” O n atl eas tt hr ee pr evi ous occa s i ons , G i nn and O ffi cer F o rd e n g a g e d in a c a r c h a s e w h ic h re s u lte d in G in n o u tru n n in g th e p o lic e o ffic e r. A tone poi nt , O ffi cerFor d i nform ed J err ed and G i nn, “I ’ m goi ng t o gety ou, one w ayo r th e o ther.” (A p p x . at 19 8 -99 . ) A fter learn ing o f O fficer F o rd’s p roc li v ityto en g ag e in p u rsuit of H ask ell ’s y o u n g p e o p le, H a sk e ll R e se rv e P o lice C h ief, D a llas M a th e w s, to ld O ffice r F o rd to s t op chas i ng t he ki ds . H e advi s ed O ffi cerFor d t o chas e them for a s hor tt i m e, l et t hem go and w ai tunt i l t heycame back t o t ow n t o handl e anyt r aff i c i nfr act i on w h ich m ayh av e o cc u rred . M athe w s testi fied h e g av e this ad v ice sh o rt lyb efo re A pr i l 2, 2001. I n addi t i on, M r . G r aves t es t i fi ed C hi ef Thom as s t at ed s hor t l yaft erO ffi cerFor d cl ai m s he pul l ed behi nd J err ed’ s vehi cl e bec aus e he 3 ob served i t. . . “spi nn i ng [] i n thr ee 36 0-degree ci rcl es. ” (A pp x. at11 8. ) B ecause For d’ s ver s i on of the eve nt s i s atodds w i th thatof the G r aves w e pr es um e the G raves’ versi on i s corr ectfor sum m aryj ud gm ent anal y si s. -6- Jerred’ s deat h thatC hief T ho m as had “ t old [O ffi cer Ford] not t o ch ase tho se boy s, t hathe coul d gett hem w hen theycame back t o t ow n. I f they ’ ve gota t i cket co m ing , to g ive it t o them , o r ca ll their pa ren ts . . . . [O fficer F o rd] just d idn ’t lis te n to [ m e ].” (A p p x . a t 2 3 0 ). A t ap p ro x im a tely1 1 p .m . o n A p ril 2 , 2 0 0 1 , Je rre d a n d G in n w e re o n th e ir w ayh o m e f

rom a f ri en d ’s ho u se. G inn w as d ri v ing h is m o ther’s sil v er F ir eb ir d and J err ed w as dr i vi ng an i dent i cal Fi r ebi r d ow ned byhi s fr i end, K ar i B eede , w i t h t he l i cens e pl at e “K J S- C A R . ” A ccor di ng t o G i nn, he pul l ed overt o the s i de of the r oad and J arr ed pul l ed up bes i de hi m . G i nn t ol d J arr ed t o tur n hi s l i ght s off beca us e G i nn w as l at e gett i ng hom e. J err ed compl i ed and the tw o car s cont i nued dow n t he r oad w i t h J err ed i n t he l ead unt i l j us tbefor e G i nn’ s dr i vew ay . A tthat poi nt , O ffi cerFor d pul l ed ar ound G i nn and behi nd J err ed w i th hi s l i ght s off. 3 O fficer F o rd th en turn ed o n h is ov erh ea d li g h ts. Jerred too k o ff an d O fficer F o rd pur s ued hi m . G i nn fol l ow ed them t o the ci tyl i m i t s and turned ar ound. A cc o rdin g to O fficer F o rd, he im m ed iat elyrad ioed the M u sk o g ee S h eriff ’s O ffi ce i nform i ng di s pat ch he w as i n pur s ui t . T he Sher i ff O ffi ce’ s l og s heet i nd i cat es that O ffi cer Ford report ed h e w as i n p ursui tof a c ar w i th the l i cense pl at e “LO R R I . ” For d chas ed J err ed t o a poi ntw her e the hi ghw aycurved and-7-

i nter sect ed a d i rtroad. Jerred con t i nu ed d ow n the di rtroad, kicki ng up a du st tra il w h ich slo w e d F o rd . B yth e tim e F o rd g o t to th e e n d o f th e d irt ro a d w h e re it agai n i nt er s ect ed w i t h t he pave d hi ghw ay , he had l os ttr ack of J err ed. H e s hutoff hi s engi ne, l i ght s and s i r en and r ol l ed dow n the w i ndow t o l i s t en forthe s ound of t i r es . ( A ppx. at186- 87. ) W hen he he ar d the s ound of a s peedi ng cart o the nor t h, he r es t ar t ed hi s carand equi pm entand hea ded north. I n t he meant i m e, J err ed w as appr oachi ng an i nt er s ect i on w i th hi s l i ght s off a t a s p e e d e s tim a te d a t o v e r 1 0 0 m ile s a n h o u r. U n a b le to s e e J e rr e d ’s u n lit c a r, a w hi t e truck pul l ed outand tur ned nor th- bound on the hi ghw ay . C om i ng fr om behi nd, J err ed s w erved t o avoi d the truck, l os tcontr ol , over corr ect ed and hi tan obs t acl e on the others i de of the hi ghw ay . H i s carw entai rborne, fl i pped and r ol l ed i nt o a fi el d. T he occ upant s of the w hi t e truck and a s econd ve hi cl e pul l ed t o t he s i de of the r oad t o gi ve as s i s t ance . O ffi cerFor d arr i ved s hor t l yther eaf t er a n d c a lled fo r re sc u e . Je rre d w a s life -flig h ted to S t. Jo h n M e d ica l C e n ter in T ul s a, w her e he di ed on A pr i l 3, 2001. A lth o u g h the H ask ell P o li ce D ep artm en t had a p u rsuit po li cy , O fficer F o rd admi t t ed he ha d neverr ead i t . O ffi cerFor d had, how ever , t aken a “Law E n fo rce m en t D ri v er T raining ” c o u rse d u ri n g h is C L E E T tr ainin g . O fficer F o rd r es i gned fr om the H as kel l Pol i ce D epart m enton A pr i l 24, 2001. T he G r aves fi l ed a c om pl ai nton O ct ober25, 2004, al l egi ng vi ol at i ons of t he Four t h A m endment , t he Four t eenth A m endmentand the fa i l ur e t o pr ovi deCa l i f o r n i a v . Ho da r i D. , 4 9 9 U .S . 6 2 1 , 6 2 9 (1 9 9 1 ) (F a ilu re to c o m p ly 4 w ith a n o rd e r to h a lt w a s n o t a s e izu re .) ; C o u n ty o f Sa c ra m e n to v . L e w is , 523 U . S. 833, 845 ( 1998) ( “[N ] ei t herus age norcomm on- l aw t r adi t i on m akes an at t empt eds ei zur e a s ei zur e. ”) ( quot i ng Ho da ri D . , 4 9 9 U . S . at 62 6 ). -8- adequa t e tr ai ni ng and/ ors upervi s i on. O ffi cerFor d and C hi ef Thom as fi l ed m ot i ons fors um m aryj udgm ent . B oth as s er t ed qual i fi ed i m m uni ty , ar gui ng no con st i tuti on al viol at i on occu rr ed. T he d i stri ctcou rtdeterm i ned the G raves’ F o u rth A m en d m en t claim w as p rec lud ed b y estab li sh ed p rec ed en t. T h e c o u rt 4 fur t herconcl uded For d’ s behavi orw as notarbi tr aryand the fa ct s di d nots hock t he cons ci ence of the court , t her ebynegat i ng the G r aves ’ Four t eenth A m endment s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p ro c e s s c la im a n d w a rr a n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in F o rd ’s fa v o r. T h e d istric t co u rt th e n g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t to C h ief T h o m a s a n d H a sk e ll b ec au se th eyh ad n o li ab il ityin the ab sen ce o f a v iolati o n o f Je rred ’s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. I I I . D i s cus s i on T h e G ra v e s c h a llen g e o n lyth e d istric t co u rt’s c o n c lu sio n th a t th e yfa iled to r ai s e a mat er i al i s s ue of factas t o w hethert he ac t i ons of O ffi cerFor d and, i n tur n, C hi ef Thom as and H as kel l , vi ol at ed J err ed’ s s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s r i ght s under th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t. T he Four t eenth A m endmentpr ovi des t hatno per s on s hal l be depr i ved of

“ l i fe , l i b e r t y , o rp r o p e r t y , wi t h o u td u e p r o c e s s o f l a w. ” U. S . Co n s t . a me n d . XI V, § 1 . “[T ]he t ou chst on e of d ue p rocess i s prot ect i on of the i nd i vidual against-9-

arbi t r aryact i on of governm ent. . . w hetherthe fa ul tl i es i n a deni al of fundament al pr ocedur al fai r nes s . . . ori n the exe r ci s e of pow erw i thoutany r eas onabl e j us t i fi cat i on i n t he s ervi ce of a l egi t i m at e governm ent al obj ect i ve. ” L e w is , 5 2 3 U .S . a t 8 4 5 -4 6 (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ). “Subs t ant i ve due pr oces s cl ai m s ar e notbas ed on s t at e l aw butar e founde d upon deepl yr oot ed not i ons of funda m ent al per s onal i nt er es t s der i ved fr om the C ons t i tut i on. ” Hennigh v. C i t y of Shaw nee , 155 F. 3d 1249, 1256 ( 10th C i r . 1998) (q u o ta tio n a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ). “The ‘ ul t i m at e’ s t andar d fordet erm i ni ng w hetherther e has been a s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s vi ol at i on i s w hetherthe cha l l enged gove rnm entact i on s hocks t he cons ci ence of fe der al j udges . ” Moo re , 438 F. 3d at1040 ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) . W hen appl y i ng thi s s t andar d, “w e mustbeari n m i nd thr ee bas i c pr i nci pl es hi ghl i ght ed byt he Supr eme C our ti n eval uat i ng s ubs t ant i ve due p roc ess c lai m s: ( 1 ) th e n ee d fo r restr aint in d efining their sco p e; (2) the co n ce rn t hat§ 1983 notr epl ace s t at e t or tl aw ; and ( 3) the nee d fordefe r ence t o l ocal pol i cym aki ng bodi es i n m aki ng deci s i ons i m pact i ng upon publ i c s afe ty . ” Uh lrig v. Harder, 6 4 F .3 d 5 6 7 , 5 7 3 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 5 ) (in ter n a l cita tio n s o m itt e d ); s ee R a d e c k i v. B a re la , 146 F. 3d 1227, 1229- 30 ( 10th C i r . 1998) . A l though “the co n scien ce -sho ck ing stan d ard is difficult t o d efine a n d to p inp o int, ” the stan d ard is n o t m e t b yo ff

ic ia l n e g lig e n c e . Id. T he Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n L e w is i s the s t ar t i ng poi ntw hen-10-

co n side ri n g a su b stan ti v e d u e p roc ess c lai m resu lt ing fro m a h igh sp ee d ch ase . In L e w is a C al i forni a patr ol m an pur s ued tw o t eens on a mot or cy cl e w hen they r efus ed t o heed hi s comm and t o s t op. 523 U . S. at836. “The m ot or cy cl e and patr ol carr eac hed s peeds up t o 100 m i l es an hour , w i th [the off i cer ] fol l ow i ng at a di s t ance as s hor tas 100 fee t ; atthats peed, hi s carw oul d have r equi r ed 650 fe et t o s t op. ” Id . at837. W hen the mot or cy cl e dr i verm ade a s harp tur n, the p a s s e n g e r fe ll o ff. T h e o ffic e r, u n a b le to s to p , h it a n d k ille d th e p a s s e n g e r. Id . A cknow l edgi ng s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s m ayappl yt o s i tuat i ons w her e an exec ut i ve abus e of pow erhas occurr ed, even though ther e w as no s ei zur e, the C our tnevert hel es s concl uded the fa ct s i n L e w is di d notes t abl i s h the r equi r ed in te n t. Id. at836. I tconcl uded a “ cogni zabl e l evel of exe cut i ve abus e of pow er [i s ] t hatw hi ch s hocks t he cons ci ence , ” i d. at846, and pol i ce be havi ori n hi ghsp ee d p u rsuits on lyri ses to that leve l w h en there is “a p u rpo se to ca u se h arm unr el at ed t o t he l egi t i m at e obj ectof arr es t , ” i d. at836, “ort o w or s en [the vi ct i m ’ s ] l egal pl i ght . ” Id . at854. A ppl y i ng thi s s t andar d, the C our tdet erm i ned th e o ffice r w a s p re se n ted w ith a v io latio n o f th e law fo r w h ich h e w a s n o t to bl ame and t o w hi ch hi s r eac t i on w as “i ns t i nct i ve. ” Id . at 85 5 . T h e C o u rt r ecogni zed thatprudence m ayhave c ouns el ed a di ffe r entr es pons e, butther e w as “no r eas on t o bel i eve that[the off i cer ’ s act i ons ] w er e t ai nt ed byan i m pr operor m al i ci ous m ot i ve. . . . ” Id . L e w is re c o g n ize d a c tio n s d e m o n stra tin g th e lev e l o f c u lp a b ili tyre q u ire d inG i nn t es t i fi ed: 5 I p u lle d o v e r t o th e s id e o f th e ro a d , a n d J e rr e d p u lle d n e x t to m e . I t ol d hi m t o tur n hi s l i ght s outbeca us e I w as l at e gett i ng hom e. A nd then h e w en t on ri g h t – h e w en t on . R igh t befo re w e g o t t o M o m ’s d riv e w a yh e re c o m e [ s] J o sh [ O ffice r F o rd ] a ro u n d m e w ith h is lig h ts off a nd gotr i ghton J err ed, and fl i pped hi s t op l i ght s on J err ed. ( A ppx. at206. ) T hus , acc or di ng t o G i nn, J err ed w as dr i vi ng on t he s tr eetat appr oxi m at el y11 p. m . w i t h hi s l i ght s outi n vi ol at i on of 47 O kl a. St at . § 12- 201 ( 1961) ( al l vehi cl es on a publ i c r oad mustdi s pl ayl i ght s “[a ] tanyt i m e fr om one- hal f ( 1/ 2) houraft ers uns ett o one- hal f ( 1/ 2) hourbefor e s unr i s e, al s o r efe r r ed -11- s u b s t a n t i v e d u e p r o c e s s c l a i ms mu s tb e c o n s i d e r e d i n th e c o n t e x to f th e c l a i m, say i ng , “[d]el i berat e i nd i fference thatshock s i n o ne en vir on m ent m ayno tbe so pat ent l yegr egi ous i n another , and ourconce rn w i th pr es ervi ng the cons t i tut i onal pr opor t i ons of s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s demands a n exac tanal y s i s of ci r cumst ance s befor e anyabus e of pow eri s condemned as cons ci ence s hocki ng. ” Id . at850. “[W ] hen unfor es een c i r cumst ance s demand an offi cer ' s i ns t ant j udgm ent , even pr eci pi t at e r eckl es s nes s fai l s t o i nch cl os e enough t o harm ful purpos e t o s park t he s hock thati m pl i cat es the l ar ge conc erns of the governor s and t he governed. ” P er ez , 4 3 2 F . 3 d at 11 6 6 (i n terna l qu o tat ion s o m itted). H o w ev er, “w hen ac tual del i ber at i on i s pr act i cal , ” w e w i l l empl oya “de l i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence ” s ta n d a rd . L e w is , at 8 5 1 ; R adecki , 146 F. 3d at1231. T he G r aves al l ege the di s t r i ctcour ti gnor ed the mostcr i t i cal ques t i on of fac ti n t hi s cas e–O ffi cerFor d’ s m ot i ve i n at t empt i ng t o s t op J err ed. T he G r aves poi ntt o G i nn’ s t es t i m onydeny i ng J err ed had be en dr i vi ng r eckl es s l ypr i ort o the sto p a n d th e e v id e n c e o f F o rd ’s p re d ilec tio n to “ h a ra ss ” th e tee n a g e rs, e sp e c ially 5t o i n t hi s chapt eras ni ght t i m e. ”) . O ffi cerFor d, how ever , s t at ed J err ed

ext i ngui s hed hi s l i ght s i m m edi at el yaft erO ffi cerFor d turned on hi s overhead lig h ts . (A p p x . a t 1 1 8 ). -12- G i nn, byfol l ow i ng t hem w i t h hi s headl i ght s off a nd engagi ng them i n hi gh- s peed c h a se s. T h e yh ig h lig h t O ffice r F o rd ’s a lleg e d sta tem e n t th a t h e w a s “ g o in g to g et” Je rred an d G inn “o n e w ayo r th e o ther” an d the in fe ren ce that O fficer F o rd a c tu a llyth o u g h t h e w a s c h a sin g G in n w h e n h e re p o rte d th e w ro n g lice n se p late to t he M us kogee Sher i ff’ s di s pat ch. T he G r aves cont end thi s evi dence i s s uffi ci ent fora j ur yt o i nfert he att empt ed tr aff i c s t op w as i nt ent i onal l ydes i gned t o i nduce a hi gh s peed c has e, demonstr at i ng O ffi cerFor d’ s i nt entt o harm and/ orw or s en J err ed’ s l egal pl i ght . T heyal s o m ai nt ai n J err ed’ s l at erl egal vi ol at i ons cannot leg iti m ize su c h p u rsu it b e c a u se h e w a s m e re lye x e rc isin g h is c o m m o n -la w rig h t to re sis t an u n law f

u l ar re st. A s a re su lt, th e G ra v e s a rg u e th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in requi ri ng t heyshow bo t h the r equ i si t e i ntentand that O ffi cer Ford’s act i ons rose t o a level w hich “shock s the co nsci ence.” A n “ex actanaly si s” of t he G raves’ c laim s re v e a ls tw o se p a ra te d e c isio n s a t issu e h e re – th e d e c isio n to a ttem p t a tra ffic s to p a n d th e d e c isio n to e n g a g e in p u rsu it. A . The D ecis i on t o Make a Tr af f i c Stop A l t hough i ts eems a bi tfar - fet ched, forthe purpos e of s um m aryj udgm ent w e w i l l as s um e a j ur ycoul d bel i eve O ffi cerFor d’ s t es t i m onythatJ err ed di d not tur n hi s l i ght s off unt i l O ffi cerFor d pul l ed behi nd hi m , butnotcr edi tO ffi cer For d’ s t es t i m onyaboutJ err ed’ s r eckl es s dr i vi ng befor e the s t op. So cons trued,-13-

t he dec i s i on t o pul l behi nd J err ed and tur n on overhead l i ght s w as a pr oductof ac tual d eli b era ti o n thu s tr igg ering a d eli b era te i n d iffe ren ce an aly sis of F o rd’s m e n tal s tate (lo o k in g fo r a p u rp o se to c a u se h a rm u n re late d to th e leg iti m a te o bjec t o f

a rre st). H o w e v e r, ev e n a ss u m in g F o rd w a s d e lib e ra telyin d iffe re n t to Jerred ’s F o u rt ee n th A m en d m en t r igh ts i n att em p ti n g a traffic st o p , h is acti o n s are n o t c o n s c ie n c e s h o c k in g . C o n tra ryto th e G ra v e s’ c o n ten tio n , a c u lp a b le m e n tal s tate , alo n e , is in s u ffic ie n t to e s ta b lis h a v io la tio n o f s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p ro c e s s . L ew is, 523 U . S. at 847 n. 8 ( t o es t abl i s h a s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s vi ol at i on, pl ai nt i ffs m us ts how t hat“the beha vi orof the [] offi ceri s s o egr egi ous , s o outr ageous , thati tm ay fa irlyb e sa id to sh o c k th e c o n tem p o ra ryc o n sc ien c e .”); Tonkovi ch v. Kan. B d. of R egen ts, 159 F. 3d 504, 528 ( 10t h C i r . 1998) ( “[A ] pl ai nt i ff mustdo m or e than s how t hatt he governm entact ori nt ent i onal l yorr eckl es s l ycaus ed i nj ur yt o the p lain tiff b ya b u sin g o r m isu sin g g o v e rn m e n t p o w e r.”) (c itatio n o m itt e d ); A rm ijo By & Th roug h C ha vez v. Wag on Mou ndP ub . Sch s. , 1 5 9 F .3 d 1 2 5 3 , 1 2 6 3 (1 0 th C i r. 19 98 ) ( “T he k eyt o the st at e-cr eat ed d ang er cas es . . . l i es i n the st at e act ors' cul pabl e know l edge and conducti n aff i r m at i vel ypl aci ng an i ndi vi dual i n a pos i t i on of dange r , effect i vel ys t r i ppi ng a per s on of herabi l i tyt o defe nd her s el f, o r c u tti n g o ff

p o ten tial so u rc e s o f

p riv a te a id .”) ( e m p h a sis a d d e d ); see also Ter r el lv. Lars on , 3 9 6 F .3 d 9 7 5 , 9 8 1 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (“ N o t all d e lib e ra tely i ndi ffe r entconducti s cons ci ence s hocki ng i n the cons t i tut i onal s ens e of the-14-

term . ”). T he conduc tr es ul t i ng fr om For d’ s pr es um ed cul pabl e s t at e of mi nd w as m e re ly to p u ll u p b e h in d J e rr e d a n d tu rn o n h is o v e rh e a d lig h ts , n o th in g m o re . Je rre d k n e w F o rd w a s a c tin g a s a p o lice o ffice r a n d n o th in g in th e re c o rd su g g e sts th e tr a ffic s to p p la c e d J e rr e d in fe a r fo r h is p h y s ic a l w e ll- b e in g . C f . C heckiv. Webb , 785 F. 2d 534, 535 ( 5t h C i r . 1986) ( “N ei therC hecki norhi s dr i verknew t hatt he [t ai l gat i ng] O l ds m obi l e w as an unmar ked s t at e pol i ce ve hi cl e, orthatt he m en i ns i de w er e s t at e tr ooper s A l l i s on and W ebb. ”) . J err ed al one made the d e c isio n to flee , eith e r to a v o id a n e n c o u n ter w ith F o rd (a n d , p o ss ib ly , a tra ffic t i cket ) ort o i ns t i gat e a r ound of hi gh- s peed c atand mouse. For d m ayhave a n ticip a ted , ev e n re lish e d , Je rre d ’s irr a tio n a l re sp o n se to h is p re se n c e , b u t h e d id n o th in g to c o m p e l it . H e c a n n o t b e h e ld a c c o u n tab le fo r Je rre d ’s fa ilu re to exer ci s e r eas onabl e s el f- r es t r ai nt . T hatbr i ngs us t o di s cus s i on of For d’ s s econd d e c isio n , p u rsu it. B . Th e D e c isio n to E n g a g e in P u rs u it T h e d e c isio n to p u rsu e Je rre d is s q u a re lyw ith in th e ter rito rye x p lo re d in L e w is . A s i n L e w is , O ffi cerFor d w as fac ed w i th an unexpl ai ned fl i ghtfr om an at t empt ed tr aff

i c s t op. T her efor e, the G r aves m us ts how O ffi cerFor d’ s r eac t i on w as m ot i vat ed by“a purpos e t o caus e harm unr el at ed t o the l egi t i m at e obj ectof a rr e s t” o r w o rs e n J e rr e d ’s le g a l p lig h t. L e w is , 523 U . S. at836, 854. T he G r aves agai n poi ntt o t hei revi dence t hatO ffi cerFor d di d nots ee a tr aff i c vi ol at i on pr i orT h e G ra v e s a tte m p t to s h ro u d F o rd ’s s ta te m e n t w ith m a le v o le n t in te n t. A 6 m ore ben i gn i nterpret at i on i s atl eastas pl ausi ble— F ord ho ped t o catch and arr est J err ed and G i nn i n t he comm i s s i on of cr i m i nal act s ( tr aff i c l aw s i ncl uded) . E ven a ss u m in g F o rd w a n ted to p ro v o k e Je rre d in to a re c k les s, h ig h sp e e d a ttem p t to e lu d e h im , tha t is n o t en o u g h . It i s a lso n e c e ss a ryth a t F o rd in ten d e d (o r, at le a st, t hati tw as hi ghl ypr obabl e, bor der i ng on cert ai nty ) forJ err ed t o be harm ed i n t he process. O n thi s r ecord i tstret ches creduli tybey on d elas t i c l i m i t s t o infer s o m uch from t ho se w ords. -15- t o s t oppi ng J err ed and hi s s t at ementthathe “w as goi ng t o get ” G i nn and J err ed. 6 A s expl ai ned above , For d’ s s t at ementi s i ns uffi ci entt o j us t i fyJ err ed’ s hi gh- s peed fl i ght . T he G r aves al s o cont end “[ t ] her e i s abs ol ut el yno evi dence i n thi s cas e, exce ptfor[] [O ffi cer ] For d’ s t es t i m ony , thatJ err ed comm i t t ed anyvi ol at i on of an ylaw p ri o r t o [O fficer] F o rd in it iat ing the p u rsuit. ” (A p p ell an t’ s B r. at 11 . ) W e di s agr ee. G i nn’ s t es t i fi ed: “[a ] nd [For d] fl i pped hi s t op l i ght s on J err ed. A nd they w entoutof t ow n. ” ( A ppx. at206. ) B eca us e G i nn verycar eful l yavoi ded any di s cus s i on of J err ed’ s s peci fi c conduc taft erO ffi cerFor d turned on hi s overhead l i ght s , For d’ s t es t i m onyi s undi s put ed. For d s ai d J err ed dr ove off w i thout headl i ght s ata “hi gh r at e of s peed” pr i ort o pur s ui t . ( A ppx. at118. ) T hus , t he u n d isp u ted e v id e n c e d e m o n stra tes Je rre d w a s in th e p ro c e ss o f v io latin g tra ffic l aw s and el udi ng a pol i ce offi ceratt he t i m e For d i ni t i at ed pur s ui t . T he di s tr i ct c o u rt c o n sid e re d th e p u rsu it j u stified . Je rre d su p p lied , in s p a d e s, a “ leg iti m a te o bjec t o f

a rre st” a n d th e re c o rd fa ils to leg iti m a telysu g g e st a n in ten t o f F o rd to c a u se h a rm u n re late d to th e a rre st.O kl ahoma r ecogni zes a comm on- l aw r i ghtt o r es i s tarr es t , but 7 d iffe re n tia te s b e tw e e n a n a tte m p te d a rr e s t a n d a n in v e s tig a to ry d e te n tio n . See C a ste lla n o v . S ta te , 5 8 5 P .2 d 3 6 1 (O k la. C rim . A p p . 1 9 7 8 ) (“ If th e o ffice r is m o m e n tar ilyd e tain in g a p e rso n in o rd e r to m a k e a n in q u iryso a s to d e ter m in e h is id e n titya n d o b tain m o re in fo rm a tio n , an d is in n o w a ya ttem p tin g to re stra in h im o f h is lib e rtyo r ta k e h im in to c u sto d y , the n th e sto p d o e s n o t co n stitu te a n a rre st, but , r ather , i s an i nves t i gat or ydet ent i on. ”) . I n thi s cas e, w e nee d notdet erm i ne w h e th e r O k lah o m a w o u ld fin d th e c o m m o n -la w rig h t to re sis t ar re st a p p lies to i nves t i gat or ys t ops . H ow ever , t he vas tm aj or i tyof s t at es w hi ch have cons i der ed t he i s s ue have ei t hers t atut or i l yorj udi ci al l yr ej ect ed a r i ghtt o r es i s tan in v e s tig a to ry st o p a n d , in m a n yc a s e s , th e ri g h t to re s is t a rr e s t in a n ys itu a tio n . S e e Fa u lkn e r v . S ta te , 627 S. E . 2d 423, 425 ( G a. C t . A pp. 2006) ( “W e do notl eave th e d e te rm in a tio n o f

w h e th e r t h e re is a le g a l b a s is fo r a tr a ffic s to p to th e d ri v e r.

-16- T he G r aves t ake i s s ue w i t h the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s concl us i on thatpur s ui tw as justi fied , arg u ing Jerred ’s ac ti o n s w ere ac ce p table e ffo rt s to resist O fficer F o rd’s a ttem p t to m a k e a n u n law f u l ar re st a n d , g iv e n h is le g iti m a te r e sis tan c e , p u rsu it w as notj us t i fi ed. A s s um i ng, ar guendo, thatthe G r aves ’ concl us i on ( offi cerm ay notgi ve cha s e) l ogi cal l yfol l ow s the pr emi s e (j uveni l e’ s att empt t o el ude pol i ce b yen g ag ing in il lega l con d u ct i s p erm issi b le), their j u sti fica ti o n s fo r Jerred ’s deci s i on t o el ude For d vi a r eckl es s and hi gh- s peed f l i ghtfal l s s hor t . W e begi n by n o tin g a ro u tin e tr a ffic s to p is n o t e q u iv a le n t to a n a rr e s t. Uni t ed Stat es v. B radford , 42 3 F . 3d 11 49 , 11 56 (10t h C i r. 20 05 ) ( w hil e “[a] traffi c st op i s a ‘se izu re ’ w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t, . . . [ w ]e h a v e h e ld th a t a r out i ne tr aff

i c s t op i s m or e ana l ogous t o an i nves t i gat i ve det ent i on t han a cus t odi al arr es t . W e ther efor e ana l y ze s uch s t ops underthe pr i nci pl es devel oped fori nves t i gat i ve det ent i ons s etfor th i n Ter r y v. O hi o, 392 U . S. 1 ( 1968) ”) (i nternal qu otat i on s and ci t at i on s om i t t ed). T he G raves fai l t o cit e t o an ycase 7T o h o ld o th e rw ise c o u ld e n c o u ra g e p e rso n s to re sis t th e p o lice a n d c re a te

pot ent i al l yvi ol entand dange r ous confr ont at i ons . ”) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons and c itatio n s o m itt e d )); Stat e v. Wi ndus , 8 6 P . 3 d 3 8 4 , 3 8 7 n . 3 (A ri z. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 4 ); S ta t e v . S i ms , 8 5 1 S o .2 d 1 0 3 9 , 1 0 4 7 (L a . 2 0 0 3 ); S ta te v . Ho w e ll , 782 N . E . 2d 1 0 6 6 , 1 0 6 7 -6 8 (In d . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 3 ); C o m v . Hill , 5 7 0 S . E . 2 d 8 0 5 , 8 0 8 (V a. 20 0 2 ); Stat e v. C ol em an , 6 3 0 N .W .2 d 6 8 6 , 6 9 7 (N e b . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 1 ); A br am s v. Walker , 1 6 5 F .S u p p .2 d 7 6 2 , 7 6 7 (N .D .Ill . 2 0 0 1 ); Stat e v. Weigm ann , 714 A . 2d 841 ( M d. 19 98 )( l i st i ng case ci t es and st atutoryauthori t i es aboli shi ng the ri gh tt o resi st a rre st in a n yc irc u m sta n c e ); Stat e v. D aw dy , 5 3 3 N. W. 2 d 5 5 1 , 5 5 5 - 5 6 ( I o wa 1995) ( adopt i ng t he Ei ght h C i r cui t ’ s hol di ng i n Uni t ed Stat es v. D aw dy , 46 F. 3d 1 4 2 7 (8 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). See als o, B r ow n v, C i t y of O klahom a C i t

y, O kla. , 721 P. 2d 1348, 1352 8 ( O kl a. C i v. A pp. 1986) ( I n l i ghtof the pol i ce offi cer ’ s r aci s tand egr egi ous b eh av ior i n effe cti n g the ill eg al seizu re o f th e p lai n ti ff ’s ca r an d the p lai n ti ff ’s a r r e s t , t h e p l a i n t i ff ’ s “ d e fi a n c e o f a n d i n t e r fe r e n c e w i th t h e w r e c k e rd r i v e r 's -17- l a w a p p r o v i n g h i g h s p e e d r e s i s t a n c e t o a n a t t e m p t e d tr a ffi c s t o p i n i t i a t e d b y a uni form ed off

i ceri n a mar ked pol i ce c ar . I ndeed, the Supr eme C our thas advi s ed: W e do nott hi nk i tdes i r abl e, even a s a pol i cym at t er , t o s tr et ch the Four t h A m endmentbey ond i t s w or ds and bey ond t he meani ng of arr es t. . . . St r eetpur s ui t s al w ay s pl ace the publ i c ats om e r i s k, and compl i ance w i t h pol i ce or der s t o s t op s houl d ther efor e be encour aged. O nl ya fe w of thos e or der s , w e mustpr es um e, w i l l be w i t houtadequa t e bas i s , and s i nce the addr es s ee ha s no r eadym eans of i dent i fy i ng t he def

i ci entones i tal m os ti nvar i abl yi s the re s p o n s ib le c o u rs e to c o m p ly. Ho da r i D. , 4 9 9 U .S . a t 6 2 7 . E ven i f t he O klahom a cou rt s w ou l d ex t end the co m m on -l aw ri gh tt o resi st an unl aw ful arr es tt o a tr aff i c s t op, J err ed’ s act i ons fel l out s i de the par amet er s of law f u l re sis tan c e . T h e rig h t to re sis t is lim ited to “ su c h fo rc e a s [ is] a b so lu tely nece s s aryt o r es i s tan att empt ed i l l egal arr es t . ” B ad E lk v. Uni t ed Stat es , 177 U .S . 5 2 9 , 5 3 7 (1 9 0 0 ). Je rre d ’s a c tio n s a f ter O ffice r F o rd sig n a led Je rre d to p u ll 8m o les tatio n o f h e r c a r w a s n o t ex c e ss iv e .”); Sa n d e rs fieldv . S ta te , 568 P. 2d 313, 315 ( O kl a. C r i m . A pp. 1977) ( “[T] he r i ghtt o r es i s tan unl aw ful arr es ti s l i m i t ed a n d v a rie s w ith th e c irc u m sta n c e s.” ); Wa lters v . S ta te , 403 P. 2d 267, 275 ( O kl a. C r i m . A pp. 1965) ( “The r i ghtt o r es i s tan unl aw ful arr es ti s l i m i t ed and va r i es w ith th e c irc u m sta n c e s.” ); B ill in gs v . S ta te , 166 P. 904, 906 ( O kl . C r i m . A pp. 1917) ( “I f an a t t empt ed arr es tbe unl aw ful , the partys oughtt o be arr es t ed may u se su c h re a so n a b le fo rc e , p ro p o rtio n e d to th e inju rya ttem p ted u p o n h im , as is nece s s aryt o effecthi s es cape , butno m or e; and he c annotdo thi s byus i ng, or o ffering to u se, a d ea d lyw ea p o n , if h e h as n o rea so n to ap p reh en d a g rea ter i njury than a m ere u n law fu l arrest . ”). T he onl yt es t i m onyon t hi s poi nti s O ffi cerFor d’ s . I n hi s depos i t i on, he 9 wa s a s k e d i f, a tt h e t i me h e a t t e mp t e d t o s t o p J e rr e d , h e i n t e n d e d t o g i v e h i m a ti ck et fo r reck less d ri v ing w h ich J erred co u ld h av e p aid a n d g o n e o n . F o rd rep li ed in the affirm ati v e. (A p p x . at 18 4 . ) -18- o v er w ere ex ce ssive an d u n n ec essa ryu n d er the circu m stan ce s. N o thing o f re co rd s ugges t s J err ed w as goi ng t o be arr es t ed and t aken i nt o det ent i on. R ather , the m os tdi r e cons equenc e of the att empt ed s t op pr i ort o J err ed’ s “r es i s t ance ” w as t he p o ss ib ili tyo f

a n a lleg e d lyu n w a rra n ted tra ffic v io latio n – a m a tter th a t is n o rm a lly a n d d i s p a s s i o n a t e l ya d d r e s s e d i n a c o u r tr o o m. 9 T h e G ra v e s a lso g e n e ra llya ss e rt e v id e n c e o f O ffice r F o rd ’s in ten t to “w or s en [J err ed’ s ] l egal pl i ght . ” A s s um i ng ( w i thoutconce di ng) t hi s ar gum ent w as adequa t el yr ai s ed, w e fi nd t he Ei ghth C i r cui t ’ s r eas oni ng i n Sl us ar chuk v . Ho ff per s uas i ve: W e dec l i ne t o r ead the t erm expans i vel y , as [the G r aves ] ur ge, beca us e eve r ypol i ce pur s ui ti s i nt ended t o "w or s en [the] l egal p lig h t" o f

th e su sp e c t b ya rre stin g h im . T h u s, a b ro a d re a d in g w o u ld e v isc e ra te th e in ten t-to -h a rm sta n d a rd . . ., a t lea st in p a rt, t o sh a rp ly li m itsu b stan ti v e d u e p roc ess liabili ty . R athe r, w e c o n stru e the term a s a p p ly in g o n lyto a n a rro w c a teg o ryo f p u rsu its th a t re flec t a c o n sc ien c e -sh o c k in g m o tiv e b e y o n d th e re a lm o f leg iti m a te-19-

governm entact i on butdo noti nvol ve an i nt entt o i nfl i ctphy s i cal h a rm . T h e p u rs u it in th is c a s e re fle c ts n o s u c h m o tiv e . 3 4 6 F .3 d 1 1 7 8 , 1 1 8 3 (8 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ), cer t . deni ed , 5 4 1 U .S . 9 8 8 (2 0 0 4 ). T h e G rav es a lso a rgu e the d istri ct co u rterred in g ran ti n g su m m ary j udgm entt o C hi ef Thom as and H as kel l . “A s upervi s orw ho i s s ued i n hi s orher per s onal capa ci t yi s ent i t l ed t o i nvoke the defens e of qua l i fi ed i m m uni ty . ” Hi nt on v. C i t y of E lw ood, Kan. , 99 7 F . 2d 77 4, 78 3 (10th C i r. 19 93 ). T he p l ai nti ff m ust e s ta b lis h th a t th e s u p e rv is o r's c o n d u c t v io la te d th e la w . Id . T he G r aves do not cl ai m C hi ef Thom as t ook anyper s onal act i on agai ns tJ err ed, butr atherthatC hi ef T ho m as fai l ed to prevent O ffi cer Ford from act i ng un con st i tuti on al l y . B ecause w e hol d O ffi cerFor d’ s conductw as notuncons t i tut i onal , C hi ef Thom as di d not a c t u n c o n s titu tio n a lly in fa ilin g to p re v e n t s u c h c o n d u c t. Id . L i kew i s e, our c o n c lu s io n p re c lu d e s th e im p o s itio n o f a n ylia b ility a g a in s t H a s k e ll. Id . at782 ( “A m uni ci pal i t ym aynotbe hel d l i abl e w her e ther e w as no under l y i ng co n sti tuti o n al vio lat ion b yan yo f it s o fficers.”). AF F I RMED .