Abraham v. Raso
183 F.3d 279 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Summary judgment in an excessive force case is improper when there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether it was objectively reasonable for an officer to believe a suspect posed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
Facts:
- Robert Abraham and his cousin, Dennis Redding, were observed stealing clothes from a Macy's store in a mall.
- Kimberly Raso, an off-duty police officer working as a mall security guard and wearing her police uniform, pursued Abraham into the parking lot.
- Abraham entered the driver's side of his car and ignored Raso's commands to stop.
- While attempting to flee, Abraham backed his car out of a parking space and collided with a parked Ford Mustang.
- Raso testified that she positioned herself in front of Abraham's car, that he accelerated towards her, and that she fired her weapon in self-defense as the car struck her leg.
- Physical evidence showed the bullet shattered the driver's side window and struck Abraham in his left arm before entering his chest, which contradicted Raso's claim that she fired through the front windshield.
- Abraham's estate alleges that Raso was never in front of the car, was not in danger, and shot Abraham from the side merely to prevent his escape.
- After being shot, Abraham drove several hundred yards before his car came to a stop; he was later pronounced dead.
Procedural Posture:
- Vanessa Abraham, as administratrix of Robert Abraham's estate, filed suit against Officer Kimberly Raso and the Township of Cherry Hill in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The complaint alleged violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, along with various state law claims against Raso and other mall-related defendants.
- Raso filed cross-claims against several parties, and the actions were consolidated.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Raso, holding that her use of force was objectively reasonable as a matter of law.
- Abraham's estate (appellant) appealed the District Court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an officer's use of deadly force against a fleeing suspect violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures when genuine disputes of material fact exist regarding whether the officer reasonably believed the suspect posed a significant threat of serious physical harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Cowen, Circuit Judge
Yes. Summary judgment is inappropriate because a genuine factual dispute exists as to whether Officer Raso's use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The use of deadly force is permissible only when it is necessary to prevent escape and the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Here, a reasonable jury could find Raso's actions were unreasonable based on the significant contradictions between the officers' testimony and the physical evidence. For example, the bullet's entry through the side window—not the front windshield—could lead a jury to conclude that Raso was not in the car's path and therefore not in immediate danger when she fired. Because questions of credibility and disputed facts are for a jury to resolve, the lower court erred in granting summary judgment.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that the 'objective reasonableness' inquiry in excessive force cases is intensely fact-specific and often unsuitable for summary judgment. The court significantly clarified the 'totality of the circumstances' test by rejecting a rigid 'moment of seizure' analysis used by other circuits, holding that pre-seizure events are crucial context for evaluating an officer's actions. Furthermore, the ruling emphasizes the critical role of circumstantial and physical evidence in creating a genuine dispute of material fact, especially in deadly force cases where the victim cannot testify. This provides plaintiffs a stronger basis to defeat summary judgment by highlighting inconsistencies between an officer's self-serving account and the physical record.
Unlock the full brief for Abraham v. Raso