Opinion ID: 2974833
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sergeant Lubelan

Text: As Saucier and Brosseau instruct, we must first determine whether Sgt. Lubelan violated Rohm’s constitutional rights by shooting him. It is well-established that individuals have a constitutional right to be free from excessive force during an arrest. See, e.g., Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386, 388 (1989); Solomon, 389 F.3d at 173. “[A]ll claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force – deadly or not – in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other ‘seizure’ of a free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its ‘reasonableness’ standard . . . . ” Graham, 490 U.S. at 395. “[T]he Fourth Amendment prohibits a police officer’s use of deadly force to seize an unarmed, non-dangerous suspect.” Sample v. Bailey, 409 F.3d 689, 696 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 11 (1985)). Rather, the use of deadly force is only constitutionally permissible if “the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others . . . .” Garner, 471 U.S. at 11; see also Sample, 409 F.3d at 697 (noting that “only in rare instances may an officer seize a suspect by use of deadly force”). The Court has identified three factors that lower courts should consider in determining the reasonableness of force used: (1) the severity of the crime at issue; (2) whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of the police officers or others; and (3) whether the suspect actively resisted arrest or attempted to evade arrest by flight. Graham, 490 U.S. at 396; Smoak v. Hall, 460 F.3d 768, 783 (6th Cir. 2006). These factors are not an exhaustive list, as the ultimate inquiry is “whether the totality of the circumstances justifies a particular sort of seizure.” St. John v. Hickey, 411 F.3d 762, 771 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Graham, 490 U.S. at 396). Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances as alleged by Livermore, we hold that Sgt. Lubelan acted reasonably in firing at Rohm. Several factors compel a finding that Rohm posed a serious threat: Rohm helped cause the standoff that led to Crosslin’s death by (along with Crosslin) setting fire to the buildings on Rainbow Farms, he was present when Crosslin fired shots at a news helicopter, and – rather than surrender as agreed upon – he exited his burning residence armed with a rifle. In addition, Michigan State Police officers were told that Rohm and Crosslin had wired their residence with explosives. Furthermore, although Livermore contends that Rohm was not aiming a gun at the LAV when he was shot, the first – and ultimately fatal – bullet fired by Sgt. Lubelan hit the rifle stock of Rohm’s gun before entering Rohm’s chest. Thus, 4plaintiff’s own expert, Dr. Thornton, concedes that Rohm was holding his rifle when he was shot. Despite these factors, Livermore argues that Sgt. Lubelan acted unreasonably in firing at Rohm. Livermore relies on Dr. Thornton’s affidavit to argue that Rohm was not pointing his rifle at the LAV when he was shot, and on statements made by Sgts. Homrich and Bower that they were inside the LAV at the time of the shooting. Thus, Livermore argues, Rohm did not pose an immediate threat when he was fired upon. We disagree. 4 Although Livermore’s brief contests defendants’ claim that Rohm was holding a weapon at the time he was killed, Livermore conceded at oral argument that Rohm was in fact holding a rifle when he was shot. No. 06-1465 Livermore v. Lubelan, et al. Page 6 First, we note our disagreement with the district court that Sgts. Homrich’s and Bower’s statements create a genuine issue of material fact concerning their whereabouts at the time Rohm was shot. In the statements at issue – derived from a Michigan State Police Incident Report filed immediately after the shooting at Rainbow Farms – both Sgt. Bower and Sgt. Homrich state that after they left their hatches and went down into the LAV, “they were informed by the perimeter personnel that the suspect had been shot.” These statements, however, only suggest that Sgts. Homrich and Bower were inside the LAV when they learned that Rohm had been shot; they are silent as to whether the officers had been exposed at the time Sgt. Lubelan fired at Rohm. In our view, these statements do not contradict Sgt. Homrich’s deposition testimony that he was exposed at the time Rohm was shot. Moreover, in determining whether Rohm posed a threat of serious harm at the time he was shot, we must focus on Sgt. Lubelan’s perspective: The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. . . . The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments – in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving – about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. Smith v. Freland, 954 F.2d 343, 346-47 (6th Cir. 1992) (quoting Graham, 490 U.S. at 396-97). Sgt. Lubelan testified that he saw an officer exposed through the hatch of the LAV before he fired at Rohm, and that he fired at Rohm in order to prevent Rohm from firing at the LAV. Even assuming that Rohm was not aiming his rifle at the LAV when he was shot, we nonetheless conclude that Sgt. Lubelan had probable cause to believe that Rohm posed a serious threat to the officers in the LAV – particularly Sgt. Homrich – due to his proximity to the LAV while armed with a rifle, his prior violent behavior, and his continued refusal to surrender and face arrest. Garner, 471 U.S. at 11 (holding the use of deadly force is constitutionally permissible only if “the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others[.]”). Because Livermore has not shown that Sgt. Lubelan used excessive force in shooting at Rohm, we need not address whether Rohm had a “clearly established” right to be free from being fired upon. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201. Sgt. Lubelan’s request for qualified immunity should have been granted, and the district court’s denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to Livermore’s claim of excessive force against Sgt. Lubelan is reversed.