Opinion ID: 3013872
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: In Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. at

Text: 11, the Court phrased the test as follows: Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1) provides “[w]here the officer has probable cause to that during a jury trial, if “a party has been believe that the suspect poses a threat of fully heard on an issue and there is no serious physical harm, either to the officer legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a or to others, it is not constitutionally reasonable jury to find for that party on unreasonable to prevent escape by using that issue, the court may determine the deadly force.” In Garner, a fleeing teenage issue against that party and may grant a 5 burglar was shot and killed by a policeman same position as the District Court with who never attempted to defend his action respect to the admonition in Siegert v. on any basis other than the need to prevent Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 (1991) and Saucier to an escape, a justification the Court refused decide the constitutional issue before to accept. considering qualified immunity. See, e.g., Bell v. Johnson, 308 F.3d 594 (6 th Cir. Here, the District Court did not 2002). make a specific finding that the plaintiff’s evidence established a constitutional It is quite understandable that the violation, but pragmatically “assumed” trial judge was hesitant to rule that a that for purposes of the Rule 50 motion constitutional violation had occurred on such a showing had been made. The court the facts in the record at that point when then moved onto the issue of whether the qualified immunity issue offered a Officer Snyder was entitled to qualified more sure-footed disposition of the Rule immunity. 50 motion. Here, unlike Saucier and Siegert, the case had already been in trial The court was fully aware of for a week. Consequently, Snyder had Saucier’s explanation of the difference already lost much of the benefit of between the determination of excessive qualified immunity – freedom from trial. force in the constitutional sense and the See, e.g., Bennett v. Murphy, 274 F.3d ruling on qualified immunity. Comments 133, 136 (3d Cir. 2002). made by the trial judge during argument on the Rule 50 motion leave no doubt on that It is preferable to resolve the score. That he reviewed the evidence qualified immunity issue at the summary bearing on the Fourth Amendment issue judgment, or earlier, stage, but if this is not favorably to the plaintiff was apparent. possible, it remains appropriate to consider the matter in a Rule 50(a) motion. See, The judge stated that “the e.g., Ehrlich v. Town of Glastonbury, 348 constitutional violation requires an F.3d 48, 49 (2d Cir. 2003); Johnson v. intentional deprivation of rights and for Breeden, 280 F.3d 1308, 1317 (11 th Cir. these purposes then we are going to 2002). assume that the shooting was intentional.” Later in the colloquy he commented, “. . . The Court of Appeals in Siegert I’m not sure that it wasn’t [a situation] approved the grant of immunity on where he [the officer] was justified in summary judgment, but the Supreme Court using deadly force.” affirmed by determ ining th at no constitutional violation had occurred. Our appellate review of a Rule 50 Seigert, 500 U.S. at 230-35. Saucier held ruling is plenary and is similar to that in a that the defendant was entitled to qualified summary judgment appeal. We review the immunity, and it reversed the Court of record as would a District Court. This Appeals’ decision, which had denied scope of appellate review places us in the 6 qualified immunity at the summary contrast here, the expert opinion issue has judgment stage because a material factual not been briefed on appeal. In such a dispute existed. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 199, setting we are most reluctant to undertake 209. Those procedural differences with an analysis sua sponte. See Garner, 471 the case before us are not dispositive, but U.S. at 22 (“As for the policy of the Police they are factors that have some bearing. Department, the absence of any discussion of this issue by the courts below, and the We believe that the circumstances uncertain state of the record, preclude any here, however, are sufficiently unlike those c o n si d e r a ti o n o f i t s v a l i d it y. ” ). in Saucier and Siegert that we may Accordingly, we assume, but do not proceed directly to the qualified immunity decide, that plaintiff established a Fourth issue without ruling preliminarily on the Amendment constitutional violation and constitutional violation claim. See proceed to the immunity issue. Ehrlich, 348 F.3d at 55-60. We are hesitant to hold that the jury could find excessive force based on the record here.