Plumhoff v. Rickard
Holding
The use of deadly force by police officers in this case " firing multiple rounds into a car during a high-speed chase, contributing to the death of the driver and a passenger " was not unreasonable given the threat to public safety posed by the driver's reckless behavior. As such, the officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment. But in any event, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established law.
Judgment
Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Samuel Alito on May 27, 2014. Justice Ginsburg joined as to the judgment and Parts I, II, and III" C, and Justice Breyer joined except as to Part III"B"2.
Issue: (1) Whether the Sixth Circuit wrongly denied qualified immunity to the petitioners by analyzing whether the force used in 2004 was distinguishable from factually similar force ruled permissible three years later in”Scott v. Harris. Stated otherwise, the question presented is whether, for qualified immunity purposes, the Sixth Circuit erred in analyzing whether the force was supported by subsequent case decisions as opposed to prohibited by clearly established law at the time the force was used; and (2) whether the Sixth Circuit erred in denying qualified immunity by finding the use of force was not reasonable as a matter of law when, under the respondent’s own facts, the suspect led police officers on a high-speed pursuit that began in Arkansas and ended in Tennessee, the suspect weaved through traffic on an interstate at a high rate of speed and made contact with the police vehicles twice, and the suspect used his vehicle in a final attempt to escape after he was surrounded by police officers, nearly hitting at least one police officer in the process.
Recommended Citation: Plumhoff v. Rickard, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/plumhoff-v-rickard/