Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/73/374/557383/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 12:28:20+00:00

Document:
Before MOORE, ANDERSON, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs and appellants Beverly Tompkins, widow and personal representative of the estate of Stephen O. Tompkins, and Phillip Tompkins, brother and personal representative of the estate of James Tompkins, appeal the grant of summary judgment to defendants City of Hartshorne, Oklahoma ("City"), and City police officer Roger Day, in plaintiffs' section 1983 action seeking damages for the deaths of Stephen and James Tompkins in connection with Officer Day's pursuit of another motorist. We affirm.
On September 5, 1992, City police officer Day received a complaint from a citizen that the driver of a blue Mazda pick-up was driving erratically and throwing cans and bottles out of the truck. Officer Day then saw the blue pick-up, and began following it, observing the truck swerving in and out of lanes of traffic and its driver throwing objects out the truck window. When the truck left the City limits, it sped up, continued swerving and the driver turned off its lights.
Officer Day then discontinued his pursuit of the truck, dropped one-half to threequarters of a mile behind the truck, and continued to follow the truck with his flashing emergency lights on. In his affidavit, Officer Day stated "I was driving with my overhead flashing lights on in order to alert oncoming traffic of the dangerous driver ahead. I was not in pursuit of the suspect at that time but was merely trying to warn any drivers ahead of me who might be in the suspect's path." Day Aff. p 15, J.A. at 00095.
Officer Day was approximately one-half to three-quarters of a mile behind the blue truck when it crossed the center line of the road, and struck head-on the pick-up truck in which the Tompkins brothers were riding, killing both of them instantly.
The Pursuit should be considered only when a Felony has been committed and suspect exhibits behavior which indicates an attempt to avoid contact with the police.
It is the duty of the offices [sic] to make every reasonable effort to apprehend the driver and/or occupants of a fleeing vehicle as described in the above caption in accordance with the following guidelines and considerations.
J.A. at 00110. The ten listed factors to be considered in pursuit decisions are the nature and type of the violation, the time of day, the weather, the road conditions, the geographic location, population density and the officer's familiarity with the area. Id. The Police Department's Standard Operating Procedures, which include the above provisions, also state that "if a Supects [sic] attempts to eludean [sic] officer in a vehicle and the supect [sic] is only wanted for a misdemeanor charge, the PURSUIT WILL BE BROKEN OFF." Id. at 00088. By affidavit, Officer Day stated that he was familiar with the pursuit policies and had received training in them. Day Aff. paragraphs 5, 6, Id. at 00093-94.
Plaintiffs brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the City and Officer Day, individually and in his official capacity, claiming that the City's "failure to adopt proper vehicular pursuit policies and to properly train its officer represents a wanton and reckless disregard for safety and human life constitutes an unlawful violation of Plaintiffs' civil rights." Complaint at p 14, J.A. at 00003. The Complaint further alleged that "Defendant's officers used excessive force and acted in reckless disregard for safety and human life.... Further this recklessness is attributable to the negligent instruction or acquiescence of the Defendant." Complaint at paragraphs 16, 17, J.A. at 00004. They also brought pendent state law claims.
had a written pursuit policy that police officers would not pursue persons wanted for misdemeanor violations who were attempting to elude officers.... Defendant Day, a trained certified police officer, was aware of this policy and had received training in the policy. The court finds that defendant City's written policy concerning vehicle pursuits of criminal suspects is not unconstitutional but reasonable, in that it attempts to balance law enforcement concerns with concern for citizen's safety. Further, the court finds that defendant City adequately and properly trained its police officers, including defendant Day, in that policy.
Order at 3, Appellants' Br., Attach. A. The district court also found that "the criminal acts of the driver of the suspect vehicle were intervening and superseding proximate causes of plaintiffs' decedents' deaths and any injury or damages to the plaintiffs." Id. at 4.
We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the district court. Webber v. Mefford, 43 F.3d 1340, 1342 (10th Cir. 1994). Summary judgment is appropriate if "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Thus, defendants in this case are entitled to summary judgment if they "establish [ ] [their] entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based on uncontroverted, operative facts contained in the documentary evidence." Webber, 43 F.3d at 1343.
There are two inquiries in this case: whether Officer Day violated plaintiffs' constitutional rights and whether the City can be held liable for any such violation. Additionally, assuming Officer Day's liability is established, we must decide whether he is entitled to qualified immunity.
Jones v. Sherrill, 827 F.2d 1102, 1107 (6th Cir. 1987). The Supreme Court has made it clear that substantive due process violations require more than an ordinary tort to be actionable. See Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 128 (1992). Whether called "deliberate indifference" or "conscience-shocking" behavior, governmental conduct which violates substantive due process requires a high degree of culpability and "outrageousness." See Uhlrig, 64 F.3d at 574. Merely "unreasonable" conduct is clearly insufficient. Plaintiffs seeking to establish that they were victimized by such conduct face a high hurdle. Cf. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. ----, 114 S. Ct. 1970 (1994) (discussing "deliberate indifference" standard in Eighth Amendment context). Because we hold that Officer Day did not violate plaintiffs' constitutional rights, we need not address whether he is entitled to qualified immunity.
Plaintiffs argue the City is liable for failing to adequately train its police officers, including Officer Day, in police pursuit procedures. They claim there are at least disputed issues of material fact as to this claim, precluding summary judgment.
In Webber, we held that once we conclude that the police officer did not violate the plaintiffs' constitutional rights, any claim against the municipality for inadequate training, supervision, and pursuit policies must be dismissed. "A claim of inadequate training, supervision, and policies under Sec. 1983 cannot be made out against a supervisory authority absent a finding of a constitutional violation by the person supervised." Webber, 43 F.3d at 1344-45; see also Zuchel v. City and County of Denver, 997 F.2d 730, 735 (10th Cir. 1993). Therefore, having concluded that Officer Day did not violate plaintiffs' constitutional rights, the district court correctly dismissed plaintiffs' claims against the City.
The pursuing police officers are liable under section 1983 if their conduct "shocks the conscience." The City is liable under section 1983 if its policymakers, acting with deliberate indifference, implemented a policy of inadequate training and thereby caused the officers to conduct the pursuit in an unsafe manner and deprive plaintiffs of life or liberty.
Id. at 1292 (emphasis added).
As we discuss more fully infra, we have drawn no such distinction between officers' liability and municipal liability. In Webber, we held that once we conclude the officer committed no constitutional violation, the claim against the municipality is properly dismissed. "A claim of inadequate training, supervision, and policies under Sec. 1983 cannot be made out against a supervisory authority absent a finding of a constitutional violation by the person supervised." Webber, 43 F.3d at 1344-45. The Third Circuit, by contrast, has held that "in a substantive due process case arising out of a police pursuit, an underlying constitutional tort can still exist even if no individual police officer violated the Constitution." Fagan, 22 F.3d at 1292 (panel opinion).

References: § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.