Document: Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2015) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CHADRIN LEE MULLENIX v. BEATRICE LUNA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE ESTATE ISRAEL LEIJA, JR., ET AL. ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 14–1143. Decided November 9, 2015 PER CURIAM. On the night of March 23, 2010, Sergeant Randy Baker Tulia, Texas Police Department followed Israel Leija, Jr., to a drive-in restaurant, with warrant for his arrest. 773 F.3d 712, 715–716 (CA5 2014). When approached Leija’s car and informed him that he was under arrest, Leija sped off, headed Interstate 27. 2013 WL 4017124, *1 (ND Tex., Aug. 7, 2013). gave chase quickly joined by Trooper Gabriel Rodri- guez Public Safety (DPS). F.3d, at 716. entered interstate led officers on an 18-minute speeds between 85 110 miles per hour. Ibid. Twice during chase, called Tulia dispatcher, claiming have gun threatening shoot police if they did not abandon their pursuit. The dispatcher relayed threats, together report might be intoxicated, all con- cerned officers. As Rodriguez maintained pursuit, other law enforcement set up tire spikes three loca- tions. Officer Troy Ducheneaux Canyon manned spike strip first location expected reach, beneath overpass Cemetery Road. had received training deployment strips, includ- ing how take defensive position so as minimize 2 LUNA risk posed passing driver. DPS Chadrin Mullenix also responded. He drove Road overpass, initially intending there. Upon learning positions, however, began consider another tactic: shooting in order disable it. *1. this tactic attempted it before, but radioed idea Rodriguez. responded “10– 4,” position, said slowed then asked inform supervisor, Byrd, plan ask Byrd thought “worth doing.” 716–717. Before receiving Byrd’s response, Mul- lenix exited vehicle and, armed service rifle, took 20 feet above I– Respondents allege from still could hear response “stand by” “see work first.” Ibid.* waited arrive, officer, Randall County Sheriff ’s Deputy Tom Shipman, discussed whether Mullenix’s would where best carry out. *2. Shipman officer located overpass. 717. Approximately minutes after spotted vehicle, fired six shots. continued forward be- neath engaged strip, hit —————— * Although disputes hearing we view facts light most favorable respondents, who oppose motion summary judgment. See Tolan Cotton, 572 ___, ___ (2014) ( curiam) (slip op., 1). 3 median, rolled two half times. It later determined been killed shots, four which struck upper body. There no evi- dence any shots car’s radiator, hood, or engine block. Id., 716–717; *2–*3. sued Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U.S. C. §1983, alleging violated Fourth Amendment using excessive force against Leija. moved judgment ground qualified immunity, District Court denied motion, finding “[t]here are genuine issues fact acted recklessly, reasonable, trained peace same similar circumstances.” *6. appealed, Appeals Fifth Circuit affirmed. 765 531 (2014). court agreed “immediacy is disputed reasonable jury find either plaintiffs’ favor officer’s favor, precluding us concluding objectively reasonably matter law.” 538. Judge King dissented. She described “ ‘fact issue’ referenced majority” “simply restatement objective reasonableness test applies claims,” which, she noted, Supreme has held ‘is pure question law.’ ” 544–545 (quoting Scott Harris, 550 372, 381, n. 8 (2007)). Turning legal question, concluded actions were reason- able. fired, emphasized, knew only threatened in- volved seconds away encountering such dismissed notion should 4 given strips chance work. ex- plained because often ineffective, operating them vulnerable gunfire cars, feared manning faced significant harm. 548–549. sought rehearing en banc before Circuit, petition. Jolly dissented, members court. King, Jolly’s dissent, filed sepa- rate dissent her own. 777 221 curiam). day, forming original panel’s majority withdrew previous opinion substituted new one. 712. revised recognized unreasonableness can resolved judg- ment—as explained dissent—but reaffirmed denial immunity. 715, 718. unreasonable several factors justified deadly cases absent here: innocent bystanders, driving relatively controlled, work, decision split-second 720–724. went conclude entitled immunity “the clearly established known use force, sufficiently substantial immediate threat, Amendment.” 725. We address there violation place, now reverse. doctrine shields officials civil liability long conduct ‘does violate 5 statutory constitutional rights person known.’ Pearson Callahan, 555 223, 231 (2009) Harlow Fitzgerald, 457 800, 818 (1982)). A estab- lished right one “sufficiently clear every official understood what doing violates right.” Reichle Howards, 566 (2012) 5) (internal quotation marks alteration omitted). “We do require case directly point, existing precedent must placed beyond debate.” Ashcroft al-Kidd, 563 731, 741 (2011). Put simply, protects “all plainly incompe- tent those knowingly Malley Briggs, 475 335, 341 (1986). repeatedly told courts . define high level generality.” supra, 742. dispositive “whether violative nature particular lished.” (emphasis added). This inquiry ‘must undertaken specific context case, broad general proposition.’ Brosseau Haugen, 543 194, 198 (2004) (per Saucier Katz, 533 201 (2001)). Such specificity espe- cially important context, “[i]t sometimes difficult determine relevant doctrine, here will apply factual situation confronts.” U.S., 205. In rule may ‘use fleeing felon does pose sufficient threat harm others.’ Yet previously considered— rejected—almost exact formulation quali- fied context. 6 Brosseau, involved suspect car, Ninth immu- nity rule, forth Tennessee Garner, 471 (1985), “deadly permissible probable cause believe poses serious physical harm, others.” Haugen 339 857, 873 (CA9 2003) summarily reversed, holding Gar- ner’s “general” “mistaken.” 199. correct inquiry, explained, prohibited ‘situation [she] confronted’: disturbed felon, avoiding capture through vehicular flight, when persons area flight.” 199–200. considered appeals parties, noted “this result depends very much each case,” “[n]one [the cases] squarely governs here.” (em- phasis Anderson Creighton, 483 635 (1987), instructive required degree specificity. There, lower based “right free warrantless searches one’s home unless searching exigent 640. faulted failing actual issue: circum- stances confronted consti- tute[d] 640–641. Without answering conclusion Anderson’s search 7 “follow immediately” from—and thus by—the prin- ciple supported circumstances Amendment. 641. reportedly intoxi- cated fugitive, high-speed twice flight threat- ened officers, moments unreasonably these “beyond 741. principle requires suffi- cient hardly settles matter. Pasco Knoblauch, 572, 580 2009) (“[I]t expect make numer- ous conclusions necessary Garner high- speed .”). Far clarifying issue, volving chases reveal hazy backdrop acted. itself, shot out fear endangered “other foot believed im- mediate area,” occupied vehicles [his] path,” “any citizens area.” 197 (first original; internal omitted; emphasis least presented just begun drive off direction bystanders. 196– 197. By time 25-mile extremely speeds, racing towards location. claims connection occasions since Brosseau. ramming fugitive whose reck- less “posed imminent lives pedestrians present, civilian motorists, chase.” 384. And Plumhoff Rickard, (2014), fatally “intent resuming” “pose[d] others road.” S., 10). never found dangerous Amendment, let alone basis denying pass many cars drivers Plumhoff; traffic I–27. At time, fugitives verbally kill path, nor about come upon event, none our precedents “squarely governs” here. Given Lei- ja’s conduct, cannot say someone “plainly incompetent” “knowingly violate[s] law” perceived did. Malley, 341. focuses availability alternative means terminating chase. argues even justify some circumstances, nevertheless travened wait see taking action. Spike present dangers own, encounter hour, them. 9 See, e.g., Thompson Mercer, 762 433, 440 2014); Brief National Association Organiza- tions et al. Amici Curiae 15–16. Nor always successful ending Cordova Aragon, 569 1183, 1186 (CA10 2009); Organizations 16 (citing examples). cite terminate selected over another. Even so, argues, governmental interest acting spikes. attempt run strips. able continue ignores interests suggesting “possible mar- ginal gain already place.” Post, (opinion SOTOMAYOR, J.). fact, hoped stop manner avoided risks relying entail. merits options available Mullenix, post, 3–4, more experience analyze differently. Ultimately, whatever wisdom choice, Court’s place More fundamentally, repeats Cir- cuit’s error. defines generality—whether inter- est choosing another—and fails 10 case.” Anderson, reasons insufficient simply proposition justified. Cases decided like- wise inappropriate like Leija’s. principally relied its own Lytle Bexar County, 560 404 (2009), passengers. That turned court’s assumption, purposes ment, moving traveled distance moment fired. id., 409. rea- sonable receding “did reasonable.” 416. But, crucially, alleged, coming him, “he likely immunity” “threat severe harm.” 412. implying incorrect, suffices dictate unjustified perceiving grave danger responding accordingly, speeding confrontation kill. ignored suggest assessment sonable. Long Slaton, 508 576 (2007), ample, Eleventh sheriff deputy mentally unstable individual attempting flee 11 deputy’s though shoot- yet operated cruiser dan- gerously. tense until uses weapon act suspect” son state mind, theft cruiser, failure heed warning stop. 581–582. rejected tried lethal methods, “[C]onsidering unpredictability Long’s behavior marked cruiser,” held, “we think need taken best.” 583 (alteration omit- ted). But Smith Cupp, 430 766, 774–777 (CA6 2005) (denying intoxicated stolen suspect’s immediately threaten bystander). Other cited respondents too factually distinct speak Several involve suspects done little than low speeds. Walker Davis, 649 502, 503 2011); Kirby Duva, 530 475, 479–480 2008); Adams Speers, 473 989, 991 2007); Vaughan Cox, 343 1323, 1330–1331, (CA11 2003). These shed far greater waiting path force. below “no ever seen,” 723, surely word prepared 12 Finally, argue repre- sented threats mere approved treme says little, anything, under- stood 100 possibly cated, saw Ducheneaux’s position. accepting fall somewhere sets discuss, ‘hazy border acceptable force.’ Saucier, 206; Because applied ‘beyond debate,’ Stanton Sims, 571 (2013) 8), grant petition certiorari reverse Circuit’s determination ordered. SCALIA, J., concurring JUSTICE I join Court, describe occurred application effecting Our prior reserved description directing desired arrestee. Rick- ard, (2014); 194 curiam); (1985). assist analysis refer happens arrestee might, example, felon’s felling large tree across road; drop late, crushes occupant, call Though kill, object harming body felon. Thus, 372 de- clined characterize Scott’s pursuing vehicle’s bumper push road Whether that, said, matters 383. So stacks deck seems me, action arguable pushing targeting occupant injury death. Here, conceded wound road, destroying engine. risky enterprise, outcome demonstrated; determining ask, distorts think, “apply force.” dissenting dissenting. rounds dark traveling without train- tactic, superior second deployed rogue driver, Jr. respectfully reversal. Resolving plaintiffs, judgment, following block: ranging 716 cease deploying flight. included defen- sive tar- get car. being sta- tioned. 723. evidence whom communication— including Ducheneaux, lieved overpass—had expressed cern safety. 720. mov- seen before. lacked permission shots: Robert Three arriving None block; body, killing II confronting claim asks questions. First, considers right. (2001). Second, contours [have understood] 202 635, 640 (1987)). “an pro- tected unlawful.” Instead, crux “fair notice” unconstitu- tionally. Hope Pelzer, 536 730, 739 (2002). Amendment’s prohibition seizures apprehend establish ‘governmental interests’ effec- tuating kind seizure outweigh ‘nature quality intrusion individual’s interests.’ 383 (2007) United States Place, 462 696, 703 (1983)). “governmental interes[t]” effectuating seizure, “how seizure] carried out.” 1, Balancing occasioned inherently fact-specific sus- ceptible bright lines. government kinds then, question—the asked—is whether, rather point goal merely “in risks” Ante, 9. record block manner. suggests results spikes, advised, concern going successful: 25 30 yards block, stopped instantly. bought trying protect—officers positions—less three- quarters existed en- gine reliable notes fallible. 8–9. information higher success rate, succeed. Moreover, setting backup further north along highway failed. certainty waiting. cites 2007), “first strips.” 11. reason prefer alternatives. Long, cruiser. 583. stopping place. future materialize contrast, neither petitioner possible marginal govern- mental necessitates sufficient. Under puts plausible choose hold interest. III largely evades key focusing primarily ques- tion stopped. assum- “sufficient,” ante, 8, “imme- diate,” face “choice evils” letting go. Scott, 384; see, 3, 10); 196–197 (2004). In- stead, chose employ potentially (shooting block) addition specifically designed accomplish (spike strips).* granting goes step full briefing argument. Thus framed, apparent majority’s exhorta- stake defined “a generality,” red herring. major- ity adduces various supposedly analysis, describes choice “one alternative” another, noting awaiting anywhere near For thing, relative subjected not. And, happened: avoid- Road.” 7. await- “Mullenix’s justify” superior’s orders 9–10. seemed orders. Instead dealing constitutionally fire wait- dwells immi- nence recharac- terizes split-second, heat-of-the-moment made “moments away.” Indeed, reading opinion, scarcely arrived shot, rural few bystanders businesses. 717, glosses Byrd— officer—told by.” did, knowledge stationed spent discussing next fellow suitable so. An appropriate ment render unreasonable. asking leave longstanding well-settled governmen- tal seizing suspect, used effectuate seizure. shooting, words were, “How’s proactive?” (Mullenix apparently referencing earlier counseling session suggested enterprising enough. Ibid.) glib comment impact analysis; intentions irrelevant “objectively reasonable” inquiry. Graham Connor, 490 386, 397 (1989). me revealing culture supports calls reasonable—or reasonable—to discernible supervisor’s express sanctioning “shoot first, later” approach policing, renders protections hollow. discussed, deny writ certiorari. dissent.

Category: 0