Waterman v. Batton
2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 10, 393 F.3d 471, 2004 WL 3023163 (2005)
Sections
Rule of Law:
Law enforcement officers are justified in using deadly force if they have probable cause to believe a suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm; however, force justified at the beginning of an encounter is not constitutional if the threat is eliminated, though qualified immunity applies if this legal distinction was not clearly established for split-second scenarios.
Facts:
- On November 28, 2000, Josh Waterman was speeding in the airport terminal area, prompting a police pursuit by Maryland Transportation Authority officers.
- During the chase, Officer Watkowski reported over the radio that Waterman had tried to run him off the road, a transmission heard by the appellant officers.
- Waterman entered a toll plaza area where the appellant officers had positioned themselves on foot ahead of his vehicle.
- As Waterman approached the toll lane, he slowed down but then his vehicle lurched forward and accelerated in the general direction of the officers.
- Although not directly in front of the vehicle, the officers were close enough to its path to be in potential danger.
- Perceiving a threat, the officers immediately fired their weapons at Waterman as he accelerated toward them.
- As Waterman's vehicle passed the officers and continued away from them, the officers continued to fire from the side and behind.
- Waterman sustained fatal gunshot wounds during the incident.
Procedural Posture:
- Waterman's estate sued the officers in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for Fourth Amendment violations.
- The officers removed the case to the United States District Court.
- The officers moved for summary judgment, arguing they were entitled to qualified immunity.
- The United States District Court denied the motion for summary judgment in its entirety.
- The officers appealed the denial of qualified immunity to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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:
Are police officers entitled to qualified immunity for using deadly force against a fleeing motorist, both when the vehicle initially accelerates in their general direction and moments later after it has passed them?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Wilkins
Yes. The court held that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity for all shots fired. Regarding the initial shots, the court reasoned that the officers had probable cause to believe Waterman posed an immediate threat of serious harm because he had reportedly used his car as a weapon earlier and was accelerating near them. The court emphasized that the Constitution does not require officers to gamble with their lives in split-second decisions. Regarding the subsequent shots fired after the car passed, the court determined these were unconstitutional because the threat had been eliminated. However, the court granted qualified immunity for these shots as well, reasoning that the law regarding the 'segmentation' of force in such brief, rapidly evolving scenarios was not 'clearly established' in the Fourth Circuit at the time of the shooting.
Dissenting - Judge Motz
No. The dissenting judge argued that summary judgment based on qualified immunity was inappropriate because there were genuine disputes of material fact. The dissent pointed out that eyewitnesses and video evidence could support a conclusion that reasonable officers would not have perceived a threat of serious physical harm, noting that Waterman was not driving erratically at the toll plaza and was moving at low speed. The dissent contended that a jury should resolve these factual discrepancies to determine if the force was objectively reasonable.
Analysis:
This case is significant because it adopts a 'segmented' approach to analyzing excessive force, requiring courts to look at specific moments within a single encounter rather than viewing the event as a blur. It establishes that force can become unconstitutional the moment a threat dissipates, even if it was justified seconds earlier. However, the granting of qualified immunity highlights the difficulty plaintiffs face in overcoming the 'clearly established' prong in cases involving rapid, split-second police decision-making. It serves as a precedent that while 'passing risk' does not justify deadly force, officers may still be shielded from liability if the circuit has not explicitly clarified the temporal limits of force in that specific context.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Waterman v. Batton (2005)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"