Opinion ID: 64737
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: O'Donnell's Use of Force

Text: O'Donnell asserts that his use of force was a reasonable response to the threat of harm that the Taurus posed to himself and the public. He further contends that this threat was ever-present, and thus suggests any dispute over the distance or direction that the Taurus had traveled was necessarily immaterial. In other words, according to O'Donnell, the threat that the Taurus posed was sufficiently grave whether the Taurus was immediately in front of him or four houses down the block. Therefore, O'Donnell argues, even if the disputed factual issues are resolved in favor of the plaintiff, he would still be entitled to qualified immunity, rendering any factual disputes immaterial. O'Donnell misunderstands the issue, however, to be merely one of distance and direction. Although the district court noted this dispute in denying summary judgment, the remainder of its order reveals that resolution of this disputed fact is essential to determining whether the Taurus posed a threat of harm at the time O'Donnell fired and the reasonableness of any response thereto. As the district court indicated, if the facts were as O'Donnell allegesthat is, he fired as or immediately after the Taurus was backing up toward himhe would likely be entitled to qualified immunity. This is due to the threat of immediate and severe physical harm that the reversing Taurus likely posed to O'Donnell himself. As discussed below, however, the threat of harm was potentially much different under Lytle's version of the facts. O'Donnell is thus mistaken in asserting that the distance and direction the Taurus traveled are irrelevant because the Taurus always posed a threat. They are instead relevant to whether the Taurus posed a threat. Further, because we must look at all of the facts and circumstances relevant to the reasonableness of O'Donnell's conduct, he is mistaken to focus entirely on the threat of harm. Even were we to agree with O'Donnell as to the threat the Taurus posed, we would be remiss not to consider O'Donnell's conduct in response to that threat. It is unclear how firing at the back of a fleeing vehicle some distance away was a reasonable method of addressing the threat. Indeed, there is some evidence in the record that O'Donnell had been previously informed of the potential danger and futility of shooting at a vehicle. Were a jury to accept Lytle's version of the facts, it might very well be troubled by O'Donnell's act of firing his sidearm at the back of a vehicle three or four houses down the block of a residential area when he was unlikely to have a shot atand apparently was not aiming forthe driver. A jury might also find that O'Donnell's act of firing at a vehicle driving away from him in a residential area posed a risk that the shots might strike an unintended target. Thus, even if we assumed that the Taurus posed a significant threat of harm, a jury could conclude that O'Donnell's conduct in response to that threat was unreasonable. In other words, under the plaintiff's version of the facts, O'Donnell's conduct itself weighs against a conclusion of reasonableness. Moreover, we agree with the district court that the distance and direction that the Taurus had traveled is essential to determining the extent of the threat that the Taurus actually posedto both O'Donnell and the public in generalat the time O'Donnell fired. O'Donnell points to several factors that he argues indicate the severity of the threat posed by the vehicle. There was, first, the threat of harm that the Taurus posed to O'Donnell himself as it was backing up toward him. Further, O'Donnell reasonably believed (1) that the driver of the Taurus was the same individual that was on bond for charges of felony theft and unlawfully carrying a weapon, and (2) that the driver was driving a stolen vehicle. O'Donnell also knew that the driver of the Taurus (1) had committed the felony of fleeing from a police officer, (2) had left a known drug location, (3) had led O'Donnell on a high-speed chase through a residential area with children playing somewhere nearby, (4) had collided with an occupied car while attempting to make a right turn, (5) had refused orders to stop, (6) had reversed the Taurus toward O'Donnell, and (7) was fleeing into the neighborhood. As a preliminary matter, by the time the Taurus was three or four houses away, a jury could conclude that any immediate threat to O'Donnell had ceased. To be sure, the Taurus might have posed an immediate and significant threat of harm to O'Donnell when it was backing up toward him. But an exercise of force that is reasonable at one moment can become unreasonable in the next if the justification for the use of force has ceased. See Abraham, 183 F.3d at 294 (A passing risk to a police officer is not an ongoing license to kill an otherwise unthreatening suspect.); Ellis v. Wynalda, 999 F.2d 243, 247 (7th Cir.1993) (When an officer faces a situation in which he could justifiably shoot, he does not retain the right to shoot at any time thereafter with impunity.); see also Waterman v. Batton, 393 F.3d 471, 481 (4th Cir.2005) (We therefore hold that force justified at the beginning of an encounter is not justified even seconds later if the justification for the initial force has been eliminated.). Thus, even were we to assume that shooting at the Taurus was reasonable at the moment it was backing up toward O'Donnell, that does not necessarily make his firing at the vehicle when it was driving away from him equally reasonable. O'Donnell retorts that the events unfolded so quickly that, even if the vehicle was driving away when he fired, he should not be faulted for failing to recognize that the threat to him had passed. O'Donnell is correct on the law. In Hathaway v. Bazany, 507 F.3d 312, 322 (5th Cir.2007), a police officer who was on foot fired at a vehicle immediately after it struck him. We determined that the vehicle, which had accelerated toward the officer after he had attempted to pull it over, posed such a threat to the officer that the use of deadly force was objectively reasonable even if the officer had fired immediately after the vehicle struck him. Id. We reasoned that the extremely brief period of time between when the car accelerated toward and struck the officer and the officer's firing of his weapon was insufficient for the officer to perceive new information indicating the threat was past. Id. Under Hathaway 's reasoningand assuming that the Taurus posed a significant threat of harm to O'Donnell at that timeO'Donnell's conduct might be objectively reasonable if he fired immediately after the Taurus had backed up toward him. Taking the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, however, O'Donnell could have had sufficient time to perceive that any threat to him had passed by the time he fired. Although O'Donnell asserts that the time between the Taurus backing up toward him and the moment he fired was very brief, it was at least enough time for the Taurus to go from a full stop to a distance three or four houses down the block. Depending upon the width of the neighborhood lots and the Taurus's speed and acceleration, this interval could have been anywhere from three to ten seconds, perhaps even more. While the scant record at this point in the proceedings precludes any certainty regarding the amount of time this took, when drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor, we must assume that the Taurus backing up toward O'Donnell and the shooting were not in near contemporaneity. Cf. id. We must therefore infer that sufficient time might have passed for O'Donnell to perceive that the threat to him had ceased. Consequently, a jury could find that there was no threat to O'Donnell at the time of the shooting, and this lack of a threat weighs against a conclusion of reasonableness. Turning to the other indicia of the threat the Taurus posed to the public in general, O'Donnell asserts that it is only reasonable to conclude that the Taurus was a clear menace. Invoking the Supreme Court's statement in Scott that [a] police officer's attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death, 127 S.Ct. at 1779, O'Donnell argues that the threat that the fleeing Taurus posed to the public renders his use of force objectively reasonable. In Scott, the Court held that an officer's use of force to stop a fleeing motorist was reasonable in part because the suspect posed an actual and imminent threat to the lives of any pedestrians who might have been present, to other civilian motorists, and to the officers involved in the chase. Id. at 1778. In the words of the Court, the suspect engaged in a Hollywood-style car chase of the most frightening sort, placing police officers and innocent bystanders alike at great risk of serious injury. Id. at 1775-76; see also id. at 1778 (characterizing the pursuit as a reckless, high-speed flight that stretched nearly ten miles). The Court thus concluded that [t]he car chase that [the suspect] initiated ... posed a substantial and immediate risk of serious physical injury to others; no reasonable jury could conclude otherwise. Id. at 1779. For this reason and others, the Court held that the officer's use of force in Scott was objectively reasonable. Id. Although it stated that [a] police officer's attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death, id., the Court's decision in Scott did not declare open season on suspects fleeing in motor vehicles. As Justice Ginsburg pointed out in her concurrence, Scott did not articulat[e] a mechanical, per se rule. Id. at 1779 (Ginsburg, J., concurring). The inquiry described by the Court is situation specific. Among relevant considerations: Were the lives and well-being of others (motorists, pedestrians, police officers) at risk? Was there a safer way, given the time, place, and circumstances, to stop the fleeing vehicle? Id. (citation omitted). Indeed, the reasoning of Scott itselfrequiring courts to slosh [their] way through the factbound morass of `reasonableness,' id. at 1778 (majority opinion)belies such a per se approach. Consequently, the Taurus's flight does not necessarily render O'Donnell's conduct objectively reasonable. Nearly any suspect fleeing in a motor vehicle poses some threat of harm to the public. As the cases addressing this all-too-common scenario evince, the real inquiry is whether the fleeing suspect posed such a threat that the use of deadly force was justifiable. For example, in Cole v. Bone, 993 F.2d 1328, 1330-31 (8th Cir.1993), a police officer shot the driver of an eighteen-wheeler after the suspect led police on a fifty-mile chase exceeding speeds of ninety miles per hour, passed traffic on both shoulders, attempted to ram several police cruisers, ran a road block, and forced over one hundred vehicles out of its way. The Eighth Circuit held that the officer's conduct was reasonable because the officer was justified in believing that the truck posed an imminent threat of serious physical harm to innocent motorists as well as to the officers themselves. Id. at 1333. Similarly, in Williams v. City of Grosse Pointe Park, 496 F.3d 482, 487 (6th Cir.2007), the Sixth Circuit found the shooting of a fleeing motorist to be objectively reasonable. After the suspect's vehicle collided with a police cruiser, one officer approached the driver's window and stuck his gun into the vehicle, pointing it at the suspect's head. Id. at 484. The suspect began to drive away, knocking the officer to the ground. Id. The court in Williams found a second officer's shooting of the driver to be objectively reasonable based upon the threat that the driver posed to both the downed officer and the public. Id. at 487. And in Abney v. Coe, 493 F.3d 412, 418 (4th Cir. 2007), the Fourth Circuit held that an officer's conduct was reasonable where the officer stopped a suspect fleeing on a motorcycle by ramming the suspect with his police cruiser. The court found abundant and uncontradicted evidence that the suspect posed a substantial threat of harm to the public, including the fact that the suspect led police on an eight mile chase during which he committed numerous dangerous traffic violations and ran another motorist off the road. Id. at 416-17. This threat of harm rendered the officer's conduct objectively reasonable. Id. at 418; see also Long v. Slaton, 508 F.3d 576, 580-81 (11th Cir.2007), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 725, 172 L.Ed.2d 725 (2008); Beshers v. Harrison, 495 F.3d 1260, 1268 (11th Cir.2007); Martin v. Dishong, 102 Fed.Appx. 780, 782-83 (4th Cir.2004) (per curiam); Vanvorous v. Burmeister, 96 Fed.Appx. 312, 314 (6th Cir. 2004) (per curiam); Scott v. Clay County, 205 F.3d 867, 878 (6th Cir.2000); Smith v. Freland, 954 F.2d 343, 347 (6th Cir.1992). In contrast, a number of courts have found police officers' shooting of fleeing motorists to be unreasonableor at least potentially so, for the purposes of qualified immunity appealswhere the driver posed a lesser risk of harm to others. For example, in Adams v. Speers, 473 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir.2007), a suspect had led police on a chase, largely within the speed limit, for over an hour. An officer twice rammed the suspect's vehicle and later, without warning, shot and killed the suspect as the suspect's vehicle rolled away. Id. at 991-92. The Ninth Circuit found it obvious that [n]o officer acting reasonably in these circumstances could have believed that he could use deadly force to apprehend the suspect. Id. at 993-94. Similarly, in Smith v. Cupp, 430 F.3d 766, 770 (6th Cir.2005), a police officer shot a suspect after the suspect had stolen the officer's police cruiser and began to drive away. The Sixth Circuit recognized that a suspect fleeing in a stolen police cruiser posed some danger to the public but held that the danger was not so grave as to justify the use of deadly force. Id. at 773. As the plaintiff's version of the facts did not mention any bystanders whose physical safety could have been endangered by [the suspect's] actions, id. at 774, the court held that a jury would be entitled to determine that [the police officer's] use of force was unreasonable and accordingly unconstitutional, id. at 775. And in Vaughan v. Cox, 343 F.3d 1323, 1326-27 (11th Cir.2003), a police officer shot a passenger in a fleeing vehicle after a suspect had led police on a highway chase exceeding eighty miles per hour and had collided with a police cruiser. The Eleventh Circuit found that [g]enuine issues of material fact remain[ed] as to whether [the suspects'] flight presented an immediate threat of serious harm to [the police officer] or others at the time [the officer] fired the shot. Id. at 1330. Since the suspects in Vaughan were little more than suspects who were evading arrest and who had accelerated to eighty to eighty-five miles per hour in a seventy-miles-per-hour zone in an attempt to avoid capture, ... a reasonable jury could find that [the suspects'] escape did not present an immediate threat of serious harm to [the police officer] or others on the road. Id.; see also Tubar v. Clift, 286 Fed.Appx. 348, 351 (9th Cir.2008) (mem.); Kirby v. Duva, 530 F.3d 475, 482-83 (6th Cir.2008); Murray-Ruhl v. Passinault, 246 Fed.Appx. 338, 346 (6th Cir.2007); Jones v. City of Atlanta, 192 Fed.Appx. 894, 897 (11th Cir.2006) (per curiam); Sigley v. City of Parma Heights, 437 F.3d 527, 536 (6th Cir.2006); Cowan ex rel. Cooper v. Breen, 352 F.3d 756, 763 (2d Cir.2003); Lewis v. Boucher, 35 Fed.Appx. 64, 69-70 (4th Cir.2002) (per curiam); Ribbey v. Cox, 222 F.3d 1040, 1043 (8th Cir.2000); McCaslin v. Wilkins, 183 F.3d 775, 779 (8th Cir.1999); Abraham, 183 F.3d at 294-95; Starks, 5 F.3d at 233. As these decisions indicate, a suspect that is fleeing in a motor vehicle is not so inherently dangerous that an officer's use of deadly force is per se reasonable. In assessing the reasonableness of a police officer's use of force, we must instead delve into the facts and circumstances of each case. Taking the facts of the present case in the light most favorable to Lytle, a jury could conclude that the Taurus posed some threat of harm; the chase took place at high speeds within a residential area, there were children playing somewhere nearby, and the Taurus had collided with another vehicle. But we do not agree with O'Donnell that the Taurus was so menacing under Lytle's version of the facts that any use of force in an attempt to stop it would be objectively reasonable as a matter of law. A jury accepting Lytle's version of the facts could conclude that the Taurus did not pose a sufficient threat of harm such that the use of deadly force was reasonable. O'Donnell had pursued the Taurus for only a quarter-to-half mile before the shooting occurred, raising a question of whether O'Donnell had sufficient indicia to conclude that the Taurus posed such a threat of harm. Also, there were no children or bystanders in the path of the vehicle, indicating that no one was in immediate danger. The Taurus's collision with the oncoming vehicle while making a wide right turn does give us some pause, but we think the jury should assess the depravity that this collision evidenced. Thus, while any threat of harm to the public would weigh in favor of finding O'Donnell's conduct reasonable, the threat was not so great under Lytle's version of the facts that O'Donnell's conduct is beyond question. When we consider the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that O'Donnell's conduct may not have been objectively reasonable. A rational jury could conclude that the Taurus did not pose an especially significant threat of harm such that the use of deadly force was justified. Further, when weighing the threat of harm posed by the Taurus against O'Donnell's chosen course of conductfiring at the back of the vehicle from some distancethe jury could conclude that O'Donnell's conduct was not a reasonable response to any threat. We emphasize this last point: the facts in this interlocutory appeal merely indicate that O'Donnell's conduct is not beyond question. We are holding only that a jury considering all relevant circumstances O'Donnell's conduct, the threat of harm to O'Donnell and the public, etc.could determine that O'Donnell acted unreasonably. The meager record at this point of the proceedings has mandated a number of inferences, and the factual assumptions on which we have decided this appeal might bear little resemblance to what the factfinder ultimately determines. But it is the job of the factfinder, not this court, to ultimately resolve the factual disputes and make the inferences that fill the gaps in the facts. On an interlocutory appeal, we are limited to assuming that any and all questions are resolved in the plaintiff's favor, tempered by the limits of reasonableness. We therefore conclude that a jury could determine that O'Donnell acted unreasonably in firing at the back of the Taurus and thus violated Heather Lytle's constitutional rights. This is sufficient to affirmatively answer the constitutional violation question of our inquiry. We thus turn to the question of whether those rights were clearly established at the time of the incident.