Opinion ID: 443256
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: the jury finding in regard to the stop, chase, and

Text: ATTEMPTED APPREHENSION OF DANIEL BELL 356 Plaintiffs argue on cross-appeal that Grady and Krause used deadly and excessive force in pursuing and attempting to arrest Daniel Bell, violating Daniel's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. They urge us to reverse the special jury verdict on question A1 finding that Grady did not violate Daniel Bell's constitutional rights in stopping, chasing, and/or attempting to apprehend Daniel Bell   . 357 Plaintiffs, however, seemingly overlook the fact that they submitted a separate special verdict question on behalf of Daniel Bell's estate for the violation of Daniel Bell's constitutional rights in the shooting and killing (Special Verdict Question B1), i.e., the fatal shot and the resulting death. The jury awarded substantial damages under question B1 for the deprivation of Daniel Bell's constitutional rights in the shooting and killing; therefore question A1 encompasses only that conduct of Grady prior to the shooting and killing, i.e., the chase, the four or five warning shots fired upward into the air by Grady and Krause, and the attempted apprehension of Daniel Bell. 358 Defendants argue that this prior conduct in and of itself does not constitute excessive force, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to reach such a conclusion, and therefore the jury verdict in favor of defendants on question A1 is sustainable. The Fourth Amendment 87 expressly declares the right of the people to be secure in their persons    against unreasonable searches and seizures. An arrest is quintessentially a seizure, United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 428, 96 S.Ct. 820, 830, 46 L.Ed.2d 598 (Powell, J., concurring), and notions of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment must be adhered to by police officers in accosting or restraining an individual even if the encounter does not culminate in a technical arrest or full-blown search. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879, 20 L.Ed.2d 889. 359 Through special verdict question A1 the question of unreasonable or excessive force was submitted to the jury, the district court providing a substantial instruction on the issue. 88 Plaintiffs do not allege, nor do we hold, that the district court's formulation of the excessive force determination in the jury instructions was inadequate or improper. Instead plaintiffs argue that as a matter of law the warning shots fired by Grady and Krause are per se excessive force. This Court declines to create such a per se rule. The district court did not abuse its discretion in submitting the question of excessive force to the jury, to be resolved in light of all the facts and circumstances. Moreover, the record clearly indicates that the warning shots were fired only after Daniel Bell ignored the officers' repeated requests to stop, and the warning shots were truly warning shots, purposefully fired directly upward into the air. 89 The jury was also free to consider the evidence that Daniel Bell to some extent fit the description of a robbery felon listed on a police bulletin. Therefore under the totality of the circumstances the jury verdict is not unreasonable and is affirmed.