Plumhoff v. Rickard

Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012 (2014). A police officer's use of deadly force to stop a moving vehicle is reasonable when the driver of the moving vehicle poses a grave risk to public safety. Additionally, the officer need not stop using the deadly force until the threat has completely subsided. Donald Rickard, deceased, led police on a high-speed car chase through the city of West Memphis, Arkansas. The decedent's vehicle reached speeds greater than one hundred miles per hour and eventually struck a police cruiser in a parking lot. The decedent's vehicle was pinned against the police cruiser, but when the decedent continued to try and move the car, the officers at the scene fired three shots into the vehicle. The decedent then made a sharp turn and nearly collided with an officer who had just exited his police cruiser. The officers fired twelve more shots into the vehicle, and the decedent crashed his car into a building. A combination of gunshots and the traumatic force of the car crash killed the decedent and a passenger. The estate of the decedent brought this action against six individual police officers, the mayor, and the chief of police of West Memphis. The estate argued that: (1) the officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and (2) even if the force was allowed, the officers went too far by firing as many rounds as they did. The officers asserted that (1) they did not violate the decedent's Fourth Amendment rights, (2) their conduct did not violate any Fourth Amendment rule that was clearly established at the time of the events in question, and (3) they were entitled to qualified immunity which would relieve them of any liability. The Supreme Court determined that the officers were justified in using deadly force against the decedent because he had driven at speeds in excess of one hundred miles per hour, swerved through upwards of two dozen cars, and continued to pose a grave risk to public safety at the time the shots were fired. Additionally, the Court dismissed the notion that the officers used excessive force in firing fifteen additional shots at the vehicle because the officers were justified in firing the initial shots and "the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended." Moreover, the Court found that even if the officers had violated the Fourth Amendment, they would be free from liability due to qualified immunity. The officers were entitled to qualified immunity because "no clearly established law precluded petitioners' conduct at the time in question." The Court relied on precedent set in Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (2004). In Brosseau, a police officer was found to be justified in firing at a driver who had just begun fleeing, even though the driver had not yet "driven his car in a dangerous manner." In sum, a police officer is entitled to use the amount of deadly force needed in order to stop the driver of a moving vehicle who poses a grave risk to public safety. (Joe Spallo)