Plumhoff v. Rickard
188 L. Ed. 2d 1056, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 3816, 134 S. Ct. 2012 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit police officers from using deadly force to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that poses a grave public safety risk. Officers may continue to use such force until the threat posed by the fleeing driver has ended.
Facts:
- Near midnight on July 18, 2004, Lieutenant Joseph Forthman initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle driven by Donald Rickard because it had only one operating headlight.
- When asked to step out of the car, Rickard sped away, leading Forthman and five other police officers on a high-speed chase.
- The chase reached speeds over 100 miles per hour on an interstate highway, during which Rickard's vehicle passed more than two dozen other cars.
- After exiting the interstate, Rickard's car made contact with a police cruiser, spun out into a parking lot, and became temporarily boxed in by police vehicles.
- While cornered, Rickard continued to use the accelerator in an attempt to escape, with his wheels spinning while his bumper was against a police car.
- Sergeant Vance Plumhoff fired three shots into Rickard's car.
- Rickard then maneuvered his car back onto a street, forcing another officer to jump aside to avoid being hit, and continued to flee.
- As Rickard drove down the street, Officers John Gardner and Troy Galtelli fired an additional 12 shots, after which Rickard's car crashed into a building, resulting in the deaths of both Rickard and his passenger, Kelly Allen.
Procedural Posture:
- Donald Rickard's daughter filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the six police officers in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, alleging a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
- The defendant officers moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.
- The district court (trial court) denied the officers' motion for summary judgment.
- The officers, as appellants, filed an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; Rickard's daughter was the appellee.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
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 the Fourth Amendment prohibit police officers from using deadly force, including firing multiple shots, to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that poses a grave risk of harm to the public?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Alito
No, the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit police officers from using deadly force to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders. The Court determined that the officers' actions were reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. Citing Scott v. Harris, the Court reasoned that Rickard's 'outrageously reckless driving posed a grave public safety risk.' Even after being temporarily stopped, Rickard's continued attempts to flee demonstrated an ongoing, deadly threat. The Court also held that the number of shots fired (15) was not excessive, as officers are justified in continuing to shoot until the threat is neutralized, which did not occur until Rickard's car crashed. Finally, the Court held that even if a constitutional violation had occurred, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established law at the time would have informed a reasonable officer that their conduct was unconstitutional.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies and expands upon the precedent set in Scott v. Harris, reinforcing that the immediate danger a fleeing motorist poses to the public can justify the use of deadly force. The case clarifies that the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness analysis extends to the amount of force used, permitting multiple shots if necessary to end an ongoing threat. By strongly affirming the doctrine of qualified immunity in this context, the Court makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in excessive force claims arising from dangerous vehicle pursuits, thereby providing significant legal protection for officers in rapidly evolving and dangerous situations.
Unlock the full brief for Plumhoff v. Rickard