Opinion ID: 6333813
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Role of Scott v. Harris

Text: “[T]he first step in assessing the constitutionality of [the officers’] actions is to determine the relevant facts.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007). Typically, when ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the district court is required to view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party—in this case, Hughes. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). However, the district court, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Scott, viewed the facts in the light depicted by the officers’ bodycam footage. As explained below, the district court properly relied on the bodycam footage and audio to the extent they “blatantly contradicted” Hughes’s deposition testimony. Id. at 380. However, not all of Hughes’s testimony was blatantly contradicted. In Scott, the plaintiff brought an excessive force claim against a police officer after the police officer rammed his vehicle into the plaintiff’s vehicle during a high-speed chase. Id. at 375. The plaintiff testified that he was driving carefully, while the officer’s dashcam footage showed him HUGHES V. RODRIGUEZ 11 speeding, swerving, crossing the double-yellow line, and forcing cars off the road. Id. at 379–80. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, stated that “[w]hen opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Id. at 380. Thus, the district court in Scott erred when it denied the officer’s motion for summary judgment because instead of viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, it should have viewed the facts in the “light depicted in the videotape.” Id. at 381. While Scott involved dashcam video footage, courts have since applied its logic to other types of evidence capable of objectively disproving witness testimony. See Coble v. City of White House, 634 F.3d 865, 868–69 (6th Cir. 2011) (audio from dashcam footage); Curran v. Aleshire, 800 F.3d 656, 663 (5th Cir. 2015) (still photographs); McManemy v. Tierney, 970 F.3d 1034, 1038 (8th Cir. 2020) (taser log); White v. Georgia, 380 Fed. App’x 796, 797 (11th Cir. 2010) (uncontradicted medical testimony). As the Sixth Circuit concluded in Coble, there is “nothing in the Scott analysis that suggests that it should be restricted to cases involving videotapes. The Scott opinion does not focus on the characteristics of a videotape, but on the ‘record.’” Coble, 634 F.3d at 868–69. We agree with the Sixth Circuit and find that, for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a district court may properly view the facts in the light depicted by bodycam footage and its accompanying audio, to the extent the footage and audio blatantly contradict testimonial evidence. 12 HUGHES V. RODRIGUEZ