Opinion ID: 783116
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Impending Escape in a Vehicle

Text: 30 Finally, Brosseau asserted that she feared Haugen would injure officers or others when he tried to get away in his Jeep. In her type-written report, Brosseau described her perception of the threat presented by Haugen's escape. In relevant part, her report states: 31 I was fearful for the other officers on foot who I believed were in the immediate area, for the occupied vehicles in his path and for any other citizens who might be in the area. It should be noted that the small red car [ i.e., Nocera's Honda] was parked directly in front of the Jeep and that I had last seen Nocera and her daughter sitting inside of it. I saw no one between the Jeep and me. I fired one round through the rear driver's side window. I had aimed at a position I perceived would be the driver's location in an attempt to stop him before he could hurt anyone. 32 . . . 33 During my encounter with Haugen it was obvious that he was in a wholly unstable frame of mind. He did not exhibit any regard for his own life. I considered Haugen an immediate danger to all around him and made every attempt to stop him including attempting to stun him by striking his head. At this time I am unable to make an accurate estimation of the distance the Jeep was from me when I fired. 34 In her tape-recorded police department interview, Brosseau further described her decision to use deadly force based on what she perceived as the threat posed by Haugen's imminent escape. The relevant portions of her interview are as follows: 35 Q. At that point, who then did you become concerned about? 36 A.... [M]y concern at that point and time were for the vehicles directly in front of him. One, which was um, directly in front of him, which is occupied by a woman and her child. And the other officers that I felt were in the immediate area, that were coming on foot to back me up. I was quite sure that some of them were right close to where he was driving. 37 . . . 38 Q. How close do you think his uh, speeding car came from striking [Nocera's red Honda]? 39 A. I don't know. 40 Q. Okay. Was it within ten feet? 41 A. I don't know.... I'm having some trouble with perceptions of distances. 42 Q. Okay. Can you estimate how close you were to his car um, when you fired the shot? 43 A. No. Not at this time. 44 . . . 45 Q. Okay. Did, was there a way for him, the Cherokee to get out onto the street by using the drive way? 46 A. No. 47 Q. So what did you think he was going to do? 48 A. Well, the driveway was completely blocked by the uh, the pick up truck. And the little red car was almost completely blocking it as well. So, I thought that his only way out of there was going to be to, to strike the truck or the little red car, or both. 49 Q. So the two people in the truck were, were in danger of being struck by a recklessly driven vehicle? 50 A. Yes. 51 Q. As well as the little girl and the mother? 52 A. Yes. 53 Q. Haugen's girlfriend in the red car? Where, were did you believe the other officers at the scene were, um, during the incident where you, were you, when you fired the shot? At that moment. 54 A. At that moment uh, can we stop the tape again for a second? 55 . . . 56 Q. When you were at the driver's door confronting Haugen, um, where were the other officers at the scene? 57 A. I, I did not see where they were at. 58 Q. Where did you think they were at? 59 A. I presume that they were in the immediate area, approaching to assist me. 60 . . . 61 Q. Um, what was your objective when you fired your weapon at the moment you fired the weapon? 62 A. To protect my fellow officers and the community from an eminent [sic] danger. 63 Q. You reasonably believed that there was an immediate threat to their life? 64 A. Yes, I do. 65 . . . 66 Q. Okay. And once again, just so that I know for sure, can you give me an, your basis for the reasonable belief that the other people's lives were threatened? 67 A. First of all, I still had in mind that he had a weapon. Um, I thought that it would be very difficult for him to try and shoot at me from the position we were at when I fired. Uh, however, I felt that he could've fired on any officers in front of him, or the people in the pick-up truck, uh, who he had cause to be unhappy with. And his driving, more than anything else. His vehicle. I did not believe he could see where he was going. He was driving in an erratic manner. Now had pedestrians and officers and residents in the area. 68 Brosseau thus indicated in her written statement and interview that she was concerned that Haugen's driving would endanger her fellow officers, the four people in the Honda and the pickup, and others. She variously characterized these people as any other citizens who might be in the area, those who were all around him, the community, and residents in the area. 69 To the extent that Brosseau said she shot Haugen because he was driving in an erratic manner, her statement is not supported by the evidence regarding the timing of the shooting. Haugen says that Brosseau shot him before the Jeep even moved. According to Haugen, not only was he not driving in an erratic manner, he was not driving at all. Others stated that, at most, Haugen's Jeep had just begun to move. Nocera said that Brosseau shot Haugen after he started the Jeep, just as he was getting ready to pull out, and that it was barely starting to roll. Aaron Riddle said he heard the shot pretty much at the same time that the Jeep started moving. Irene Riddle said she heard the shot just as Haugen first revved up the Jeep. Neighbor Florence Ledbetter across the street said she saw and heard the shot just when the Jeep started to move. Tamburello stated that the Jeep was already moving, but had gone perhaps six feet. Atwood said that Brosseau shot when the Jeep just started pulling away, that it [h]adn't moved very far, and that it had gone maybe five or ten feet. Accepting the version of the disputed facts most favorable to Haugen, we do not credit Brosseau's assertion that he was driving in an erratic manner, for we must assume on summary judgment that the Jeep had not even moved when Brosseau shot him. 70 Brosseau also stated that she thought Haugen's driving was particularly dangerous because he could not see where he was going. Brosseau said that the front windshield and at least part of the passenger side windows [of the Jeep] were covered with the newspaper Haugen had used to protect the glass from the spray paint. Haugen, however, testified that there was no paper on the windshield. Atwood also stated that there was no newspaper on the windshield. Tamburello stated that he saw some paper on one side of the windshield, but that Haugen pulled it off before he got in the Jeep. Because at this stage in the proceedings we must construe the factual evidence in Haugen's favor, we cannot say that there was objective evidence supporting Brosseau's claim that Haugen could not see where he was going as a result of the newspaper covering the windshield. 71 Brosseau further explained that, at the moment she fired, she did not believe that Haugen's impending escape in the Jeep posed a danger to her, but that it did pose a danger to others in the area. She stated that she was worried, specifically, about Nocera, Nocera's daughter, Tamburello, and Atwood. Nocera and her daughter were inside the red Honda that was parked in the driveway between the Jeep and the street. Tamburello and Atwood were seated in the pickup that was parked in the street at the end of the driveway. 72 Brosseau indicated that she was worried that Haugen could not escape without hitting the Honda or the pickup. According to Brosseau, the driveway was completely blocked by the pickup and almost completely block[ed] by the Honda. But Brosseau could not say how close Haugen actually came to hitting the Honda: I'm having some difficulty with perceptions of distances. Brosseau nonetheless argues that she reasonably believed that Haugen's escape was dangerous because he was likely to hit the Honda or the pickup. 73 Contrary to Brosseau's statements, Haugen stated that he had an easy escape by driving off to the left around the Honda and pickup. Haugen admitted that he was in a fairly small, tight space which was not like a parking lot, but he said that the driveway was about twenty feet wide and that he had plenty of room to drive between the Honda and the neighbor's house without hitting anything. The Jeep was already angled to the left, and Atwood stated that he saw Haugen turn the wheels to the left before putting the Jeep in gear. Haugen said that he had a clear, straight shot out of the driveway. The photographs of the scene also show that Haugen had more than enough room to drive away without striking Nocera's Honda or Tamburello's pickup. Viewing the evidence in Haugen's favor, we conclude that Brosseau has not pointed to objectively reasonable factors to support her belief that Haugen's escape from the driveway posed a significant risk of death or serious injury to the people in the Honda and the pickup. 74 Brosseau also asserted that she feared for the safety of her fellow officers. She has offered no specific evidence to support this fear. She claims that she presume[d] that they were in the immediate area, approaching to assist, but she does not claim that she saw them or knew that they were in a dangerous place. She had left officers Subido and Pashon, the only other officers on foot, in Rounds's backyard. Two other officers were in their patrol cars in containment positions on the street several hundred feet to the south of Haugen's mother's house. Brosseau had not called Subido and Pashon to assist her, and there is no indication that they were running to give her aid. Atwood, who witnessed the events while seated in Tamburello's pickup, stated that the other two officers were still in the backyard at the time Brosseau fired. Even if they had been running to assist, Subido and Pashon would have been running from the south-east, while Haugen was escaping to the north-west. Thus, while Brosseau stated that she feared that officers on foot might be struck by Haugen's Jeep as he drove away, her statement is no more than a a simple statement of fear unsupported by objective factors. Deorle, 272 F.3d at 1281. She has not offered any evidence to support the claim that Haugen posed a significant risk of death or serious bodily injury to fellow officers. 75