Stamps v. Town of Framingham, 1st Cir. (2016)

7/26/2019 Stamps v. Town of Framingham, 1st Cir. (2016)

1/32

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 15- 1141

EURI E A. STAMPS, J R. , Co- admi ni st r at or of t he Est at e of Eur i e A.Stamps, Sr . ; NORMA BUSHFAN- STAMPS, Co- admi ni st r at or of t he

Est at e of Eur i e A. St amps, Sr . ,

Pl ai nt i f f s , Appel l ees ,

v.

TOWN OF FRAMI NGHAM; PAUL K. DUNCAN, i ndi vi dual l y and i n hi sof f i ci al capaci t y as a pol i ce of f i cer of t he Fr ami ngham Pol i ce

Depar t ment ,

Def endant s, Appel l ant s.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. F. Denni s Sayl or , I V, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef ore

Lynch, Thompson, and Kayat t a,Ci r cui t J udges.

Leonard H. Kest en, wi t h whomThomas R. Donohue, Dei dre Br ennanRegan, and Br ody, Hardoon, Per ki ns & Kest en, LLP were on br i ef ,f or appel l ant s.

Ant hony Tar r i cone, wi t h whom J oseph P. Musacchi o, Kr ei ndl er& Kr ei ndl er , LLP, Ant hony W. Fugat e, and Bar doui l l e and Fugat ewer e on br i ef , f or appel l ees.

Mat t hew R. Segal , Adr i ana Laf ai l l e, Ezeki el Edwar ds, I l yaShapi r o, Benj ami n Cr ump, J uan Car t agena, J ose Per ez, Br adf or d M.Ber r y, and Anson Asaka, on br i ef f or t he Amer i can Ci vi l Li ber t i esUni on, Amer i can Ci vi l Li ber t i es Uni on of Massachuset t s, Cat oI nst i t ut e, Nat i onal Bar Associ at i on, Lat i noJ ust i ce PRLDEF, and


2/32

Nat i onal Associ at i on f or t he Advancement of Col or ed Peopl e - - NewEngl and Ar ea Conf er ence, ami ci cur i ae i n suppor t of appel l ees.

Febr uary 5, 2016


3/32

- 3 -

LYNCH, Circuit Judge. Thi s ci vi l r i ght s case br ought

under 42 U. S. C. 1983 ar i ses f r om t he t r agi c shoot i ng deat h of an

i nnocent , el der l y, Af r i can- Amer i can man, Eur i e St amps, Sr . He was

shot by a l ocal pol i ce of f i cer , Paul Duncan, dur i ng a SWAT team

r ai d execut i ng a sear ch war r ant f or dr ugs and r el at ed par apher nal i a

bel ongi ng t o t wo dr ug deal er s wi t h vi ol ent cr i mi nal hi st or i es

t hought t o r esi de i n St amps' s home.

The co- admi ni st r at or s of Stamps' s est at e sued t he Town

of Fr ami ngham and Duncan. The pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat Duncan

vi ol ated St amps' s Four t h Amendment r i ght agai nst unr easonabl e

sei zur e when he poi nt ed a l oaded semi - aut omat i c r i f l e at St amps' s

head, wi t h hi s f i nger on t he t r i gger and t he saf et y of f . Duncan

di d so even t hough Stamps had been subdued, was l yi ng i n a hal l way

on hi s st omach wi t h hi s hands above hi s head, and was compl i ant

and posed no known t hr eat t o t he of f i cer s. Duncan moved f or

summary j udgment on t he gr ound that he was ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed

i mmuni t y because t he shoot i ng was an acci dent and, i n any event ,

not a vi ol at i on of cl ear l y est abl i shed l aw. The di st r i ct cour t

deni ed t he mot i on, hol di ng t hat a r easonabl e j ur y coul d f i nd t hat

Duncan had vi ol ated St amps' s Four t h Amendment r i ght s and t hat t he

l aw was suf f i ci ent l y cl ear l y est abl i shed t o put Duncan on not i ce

t hat poi nt i ng a l oaded f i r ear m at t he head of an i nnocent and

compl i ant per son, wi t h t he saf et y of f and a f i nger on t he t r i gger ,


4/32

- 4 -

i s not const i t ut i onal l y per mi ssi bl e. St amps v. Town of Frami ngham,

38 F. Supp. 3d 146, 15158 ( D. Mass. 2014) . Duncan appeal ed.

We agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t and af f i r m t he deni al

of t he def endant s' mot i on f or summary j udgment on qual i f i ed

i mmuni t y.

I .

The par t i es do not di sput e t hat we proper l y have

i nt er l ocut or y j ur i sdi ct i on. The def endant s have accept ed, as t hey

di d i n t he di st r i ct cour t on summar y j udgment , t hat al l i nf er ences

f r omt he r ecor d ar e dr awn i n t he pl ai nt i f f s' f avor . See Ml odzi nski

v. Lewi s, 648 F. 3d 24, 27 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( "An i nt er l ocut or y appeal

f r om a deni al of summary j udgment on qual i f i ed i mmuni t y gr ounds

l i es onl y i f t he mat er i al f act s are t aken as undi sput ed and t he

i ssue on appeal i s one of l aw. ") .

Af t er mi dni ght on J anuar y 5, 2011, a gr oup of

approxi mat el y el even SWAT t eam member s execut ed a sear ch war r ant

at a f i r st f l oor apar t ment i n Frami ngham, Massachuset t s. Eur i e

St amps, Sr . , t he decedent ; Norma Bushf an- St amps, hi s wi f e; and

J oseph Bushf an, hi s st epson, l i ved i n t he apar t ment . The search

war r ant i dent i f i ed anot her man, Dwayne Bar r et t , as al so occupyi ng

t he apar t ment . The warr ant was i ssued on pr obabl e cause t hat

Bushf an and Bar r et t wer e sel l i ng cr ack cocai ne out of t he

apar t ment . A t hi r d man, Deandr e Nwaf ord, t hough not ment i oned i n

t he war r ant , was t hought t o be an associ at e of Bushf an and Bar r et t ,


5/32

- 5 -

and t he pol i ce bel i eved he mi ght be i n t he apar t ment as wel l . The

Fr ami ngham Pol i ce Depart ment suspect ed al l t hr ee men of havi ng

t i es t o Bost on gangs and cr i mi nal hi st or i es col l ect i vel y i ncl udi ng

armed r obbery, armed assaul t , assaul t wi t h a dangerous weapon,

assaul t and bat t ery wi t h a danger ous weapon, t hef t of a f i r ear m,

and cocai ne- r el ated charges. The war r ant aut hor i zed a ni ght t i me

sear ch of t he pr emi ses f or dr ugs and r el at ed par apher nal i a, but

di d not aut hor i ze unannounced ent r y or command sear ch of any person

f ound who mi ght have such pr opert y i n hi s possessi on.

Bef or e t he rai d, t he SWAT teamwas br i ef ed on t he l ayout

of t he apar t ment and t he cr i mi nal hi st or i es of t he occupant s.

Dur i ng t hi s br i ef i ng, t he SWAT teammembers were t ol d t hat St amps,

who was l i kel y t o be pr esent i n t he apar t ment , was s i xty- ei ght

year s ol d and t hat hi s cr i mi nal r ecor d onl y consi st ed of "mot or

vehi cl e ar r est s/ char ges. " St amps was not suspect ed of any

i nvol vement i n t he i l l egal act i vi t y under l yi ng t he sear ch war r ant

or of any cr i me. The SWAT t eam members were al so i nst r uct ed t hat

St amps had no hi st or y of vi ol ent cr i me or of owni ng or possessi ng

a weapon and t hat he posed no known t hr eat t o the of f i cer s

execut i ng the war r ant .

The r ai d began j ust af t er mi dni ght . 1 Af t er t he of f i cer s

announced t hei r pr esence, one team of of f i cer s set of f a f l ash-

1 Shor t l y bef or e t he r ai d began, J oseph Bushf an wasappr ehended out si de of t he apart ment .


6/32

- 6 -

bang grenade thr ough t he ki t chen wi ndow, whi l e another t eam,

i ncl udi ng Duncan, br eached t he apart ment wi t h a bat t er i ng r am.

Upon ent er i ng, Duncan swi t ched t he sel ect or on hi s l oaded M- 4 r i f l e

f r om "saf e" t o "semi - aut omat i c. "

Two ot her SWAT t eam members, Of f i cer s Ti mot hy O' Tool e

and Mi chael Sheehan, encount er ed St amps f i r st , i n a hal l way t hat

separ at ed t he ki t chen f r om t he bat hr oom and a r ear bedr oom. The

of f i cers ordered St amps t o "get down, " and he compl i ed by l yi ng

down on hi s st omach wi t h hi s hands r ai sed near hi s head. A ser i es

of of f i cers s t epped over St amps t o go el sewher e i n t he apar t ment .

Duncan, who had been or dered by a ser geant t o ass i st O' Tool e and

Sheehan as a "t r ai l er , " assumed cont r ol of St amps whi l e O' Tool e

and Sheehan cont i nued sear chi ng and cl ear i ng the apart ment .

St amps remai ned pr ost r ate on t he hal l way f l oor . Duncan

poi nt ed hi s r i f l e at St amps' s head as St amps l ay i n t he hal l way.

The r i f l e' s saf et y was st i l l di sengaged and set t o "semi -

aut omat i c. " Duncan sai d nothi ng t o St amps. At some poi nt , Duncan

pl aced hi s f i nger on t he t r i gger . 2 The sear ch cont i nued i n t he

2 The def endant s have accept ed, f or pur poses of t hi sappeal , t he pl ai nt i f f s' st at ement of f act s. Fur t her , on r evi ew ofsummary j udgment , we ar e requi r ed t o "dr aw[ ] al l r easonabl ei nf er ences i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he nonmovi ng par t y. "Mi t chel l v. Mi l l er , 790 F. 3d 73, 76 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) . Gi ven t hatt he def endant s do not asser t t hat t he gun mal f unct i oned or f i r edwi t hout Duncan pul l i ng t he t r i gger , i t i s al so r easonabl e t o i nf ert hat Duncan, at some poi nt bef ore shoot i ng St amps, pl aced hi sf i nger on t he t r i gger .


7/32

- 7 -

apar t ment . Somet i me bef ore t he shoot i ng, a young man f ound i n t he

r ear bedr oom, Devon Tal ber t , was detai ned. He was not one of t he

suspect s t he pol i ce expect ed t o f i nd t her e. The r ecor d bef or e us

si mpl y does not t el l us what t he st at us of t he sear ch was f or

Bar r et t and Nwaf or d.

Whi l e t he ot her of f i cer s cont i nued t o sear ch el sewher e

i n t he apart ment , Duncan was poi nt i ng a l oaded, semi - aut omat i c

r i f l e, wi t h t he saf et y of f and hi s f i nger on t he t r i gger , at

St amps. St amps was f ul l y compl yi ng wi t h t he orders he was gi ven,

was unarmed and f l at on hi s s t omach i n t he hal l way, and const i t ut ed

no t hr eat . At some poi nt , Duncan uni nt ent i onal l y pul l ed t he

t r i gger of hi s r i f l e and shot St amps. 3 The shot was an acci dent ;

Duncan had no i nt ent i on of shoot i ng St amps. The bul l et pi er ced

Stamps' s head, neck, and chest . Stamps was t aken by ambul ance t o

a hospi t al and pr onounced dead. Duncan was l ater di smi ssed f r om

t he SWAT t eam f or f ai l i ng t o abi de by pol i ce t r ai ni ng and

pr ot ocol s.

3 The pl ai nt i f f s mai nt ai n t hat Duncan pul l ed t he t r i ggerwhi l e st andi ng upr i ght . Duncan, meanwhi l e, asser t s t hat t he r i f l edi schar ged when he l ost hi s bal ance and f el l back. Thi s happened,he says, because, f ear i ng t hat St amps mi ght r each f or a weapon, heat t empt ed t o move St amps' s hands behi nd hi s back i n order t ohandcuf f hi m. However , t he pl ai nt i f f s pr esent ed exper t t est i monyt hat Duncan' s descr i pt i on was " i mpl ausi bl e, hi ghl y unl i kel y andi nconsi st ent wi t h t he evi dence. " ( capi t al i zat i on omi t t ed) . I n anyevent , t he def endant s have agr eed t o accept t he pl ai nt i f f s' ver si onf or pur poses of t he appeal .


8/32

- 8 -

Accordi ng t o expert t est i mony, Duncan commi t t ed t hr ee

er r or s dur i ng hi s sei zur e of St amps t hat vi ol at ed pol i ce r ul es,

i ncl udi ng Frami ngham r ul es, hi s t r ai ni ng, and gener al f i r ear ms

pr ot ocol . 4 Fi r st , accept i ng f or pur poses of t hi s appeal t hat he

4 The def endant s argue t hat we may not consi der pol i cet r ai ni ng and pr ocedur es i n determi ni ng whether t here was a Four t hAmendment vi ol at i on. We di sagr ee. Such st andards do not , ofcour se, est abl i sh t he const i t ut i onal st andar d but may be r el evantt o t he Four t h Amendment anal ysi s. We have appr oved t he t aki ng ofevi dence about pol i ce t r ai ni ng and pr ocedur es i nt o consi der at i on.See, e. g. , Fer nndez- Sal i cr up v. Fi guer oa- Sancha, 790 F. 3d 312,

327 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) ( consi der i ng "st andar d pol i ce pr act i ce") ;Rai che v. Pi et r oski , 623 F. 3d 30, 37 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ; J enni ngs v.J ones, 499 F. 3d 2, 1116, 1920 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( not i ng t hatevi dence r egar di ng of f i cer t r ai ni ng "i s r el evant bot h t o t he . . .quest i on of whet her t her e was a vi ol at i on at al l and t o t he . . .quest i on . . . of whet her a r easonabl e of f i cer i n [ t he def endant ' s]ci r cumst ances woul d have bel i eved t hat hi s conduct vi ol at ed t heConst i t ut i on, " i d. at 1920) ; Cal vi v. Knox Ct y. , 470 F. 3d 422,428 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) . So have ot her cour t s. See, e. g. , Young v.Ct y. of L. A. , 655 F. 3d 1156, 1162 ( 9t h Ci r . 2011) ; Tor r es v. Ci t yof Mader a, 524 F. 3d 1053, 1057 ( 9t h Ci r . 2008) ( agr eei ng t hat t he

f ol l owi ng " f act or s [ had been] r el evant t o t he r easonabl enessdet er mi nat i on" i n a case wher e an of f i cer uni nt ent i onal l y f i r edhi s pi st ol when he meant t o f i r e hi s Taser : " ( 1) t he nat ur e of t het r ai ni ng t he of f i cer had r ecei ved t o pr event i nci dent s l i ke t hi sf r om happeni ng; ( 2) whet her t he of f i cer act ed i n accor dance wi t ht hat t r ai ni ng; ( 3) whet her f ol l owi ng t hat t r ai ni ng woul d haveal er t ed t he of f i cer t hat he was hol di ng a handgun; ( 4) whet her t hedef endant ' s conduct hei ght ened t he of f i cer ' s sense of danger ; and( 5) whet her t he def endant ' s conduct caused t he of f i cer t o act wi t hundue hast e and i nconsi st ent l y wi t h t hat t r ai ni ng" ( ci t i ng Henr yv. Pur nel l , 501 F. 3d 374, 383 ( 4t h Ci r . 2007) ) ) ; Dr ummond ex rel .Dr ummond v. Ci t y of Anahei m, 343 F. 3d 1052, 1059 ( 9t h Ci r . 2003)( "Al t hough . . . t r ai ni ng mat er i al s ar e not di sposi t i ve, we maycer t ai nl y consi der a pol i ce depar t ment ' s own gui del i nes wheneval uat i ng whet her a par t i cul ar use of f or ce i s const i t ut i onal l yunr easonabl e. " ) . But see, e. g. , Mor eno v. Taos Ct y. Bd. ofComm' r s, 587 F. App' x 442, 446 ( 10t h Ci r . 2014) ; Thompson v. Ci t yof Chi . , 472 F. 3d 444, 45355 ( 7t h Ci r . 2006) .

To be cl ear , we do not mean t o suggest t hat such evi dencei s necessar y - - or suf f i ci ent - - t o est abl i sh a Four t h Amendment


9/32

- 9 -

pl aced hi s f i nger on t he t r i gger , Duncan concedes t hat he vi ol at ed

hi s t r ai ni ng and Fr ami ngham Pol i ce Depar t ment pr ot ocol by doi ng

so. Accor di ng t o Frami ngham Pol i ce Depar t ment pol i cy i n pl ace at

t he t i me, of f i cer s wer e r equi r ed t o "keep t hei r f i nger [ s] out si de

of t he t r i gger guar d unt i l r eady t o engage and f i r e on a t ar get . "

Frami nghampol i ce of f i cer s, i ncl udi ng Duncan, wer e t r ai ned on t hi s

pol i cy.

Second, Duncan devi at ed f r om "pr oper , r easonabl e,

est abl i shed, and accept ed pol i ce pr act i ces and pr ocedur es" and

"hi s t r ai ni ng by havi ng hi s weapon ' of f saf e' at al l t i mes when he

encount er ed Mr . St amps. The t r ai ni ng pr ovi ded t o Of f i cer Duncan

by t he [Fr ami nghamPol i ce Depart ment ] r equi r ed t hat hi s weapon be

' on saf e' unl ess he per cei ved Mr . St amps as a t hr eat or was

act i vel y cl ear i ng a r oom. " 5 We accept f or t he pur poses of t hi s

appeal t hat nei t her was t he case her e.

vi ol at i on, see J enni ngs, 499 F. 3d at 20 n. 24, or t hat compl i ancewi t h pol i ce pr ot ocol s and t r ai ni ng necessar i l y r ender s anof f i cer ' s conduct r easonabl e, see Smi t h v. Kan. Ci t y, Mo. Pol i ceDep' t , 586 F. 3d 576, 58182 ( 8t h Ci r . 2009) .

5 Thi s i s accor di ng t o one of t he pl ai nt i f f s' exper t s, Ki mWi dup. The par t i es di sput e whet her i t was appr opr i at e f or Duncant o have t he saf et y of f on hi s r i f l e. The def endant s not e t hat oneof t he pl ai nt i f f s' exper t s, J ames Gannal o, opi ned t hat not engagi ngt he gun' s saf et y was a " j udgment cal l . " Because of t he post ur e oft hi s appeal , we assume f act s i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t hepl ai nt i f f s. See Mi t chel l , 790 F. 3d at 76. As such, we ar esat i sf i ed t hat a j ur y coul d f i nd on t hese f act s t hat Duncandevi at ed f r om hi s t r ai ni ng and st andar d pol i ce pr act i ce when het urned of f hi s r i f l e' s saf et y.


10/32

- 10 -

Thi r d, Duncan addi t i onal l y vi ol at ed "basi c f i r earm

saf et y pr ocedur es" and "depar t ment al gui del i nes" by " f ai l [ i ng] t o

keep t he weapon' s muzzl e poi nt ed i n a saf e di r ect i on at al l t i mes. "

( emphasi s omi t t ed) . 6

I I .

On Oct ober 12, 2012, Nor ma Bushf an- St amps and Eur i e

St amps, J r . , St amps' s son, as t he co- admi ni st r at or s of St amps' s

est at e, br ought sui t on behal f of t he est at e agai nst Duncan and

t he Town of Fr ami ngham. They br ought t en cl ai ms, i ncl udi ng cl ai ms

6 Thi s i s accor di ng t o t he pl ai nt i f f s' exper t , J amesGannal o. Wi dup si mi l ar l y opi ned t hat " [ i ] n di r ect vi ol at i on of[ Frami ngham Pol i ce Depar t ment ] pr ot ocol , hi s t r ai ni ng, andr easonabl e and cust omary pol i ce weapons pr act i ces and pr ocedur e,Of f i cer Duncan f ai l ed t o poi nt hi s r i f l e' s muzzl e i n a saf edi r ect i on when he st ood i n t he ki t chen and encount ered Mr . St amps. "

The def endant s' r epr esent at i ons t o t he cont r ar y i n t hei rRul e 28( j ) l et t er are f l at l y r epudi at ed by t he r ecor d. We expect

bet t er f r om counsel .Even consi der i ng Duncan' s ver si on of t he f act s, i n whi cht he pot ent i al t hr eat he per cei ved may have j ust i f i ed t r ai ni ng t her i f l e on St amps, t he pl ai nt i f f s have pr oduced exper t t est i monyt hat Duncan shoul d not have at t empt ed t o handcuf f St amps whi l ecover i ng hi m wi t h t he r i f l e, but i nst ead shoul d have mai nt ai nedhi s posi t i on as cover of f i cer and cal l ed someone to hel p, at echni que known as "cont act / cover . " Wi dup opi ned t hat , even onDuncan' s ver si on of t he f act s, "Duncan devi at ed f r om hi s t r ai ni ngand st andar d and r easonabl e pol i ce pr ocedur e by f ai l i ng t o ut i l i zet he cont act / cover pr ocedur e. " That was al so t he vi ew of Ser geantVi ncent St uart and Li eut enant Rober t Downi ng, both of whompar t i ci pat ed i n t he r ai d. The t r ai ni ng Duncan r ecei ved r equi r edt hi s, as admi t t ed by Pol i ce Chi ef St even Car l . And t hi s i spr eci sel y what t he of f i cer s who sei zed Devon Tal ber t di d when t heyf ound hi m i n t he bedr oom. Al t hough t hi s evi dence cer t ai nl y i s notdetermi nat i ve of t he Four t h Amendment i nqui r y, we are l i kewi sesat i sf i ed her e, as wi t h t he evi dence di scussed above, t hat a j ur ycoul d f i nd on t hese f act s t hat Duncan vi ol at ed st andar d pol i cepr ocedur e.


11/32

- 11 -

under 1983 agai nst Duncan f or vi ol at i ons of bot h t he Four t h and

Four t eent h Amendment s, a cl ai m under 1983 agai nst t he Town of

Frami ngham f or negl i gent t r ai ni ng and super vi si on, and cl ai ms of

wr ongf ul deat h under Massachuset t s l aw agai nst Duncan and t he Town

of Fr ami ngham.

The def endant s moved f or summar y j udgment on al l but one

of t he cl ai ms, a st at e- l aw wr ongf ul deat h cl ai m agai nst t he Town

of Fr ami ngham. Summar y j udgment was grant ed t o t he def endant s on

seven of t he ni ne count s, l eavi ng t wo 1983 cl ai ms agai nst Duncan

pr edi cat ed on vi ol at i ons of t he Four t h Amendment . I n pr essi ng f or

summar y j udgment on t hese two count s, t he def endant s had ar gued

t hat Duncan was ent i t l ed to qual i f i ed i mmuni t y because 1) an

uni nt ent i onal shoot i ng does not vi ol ate t he Four t h Amendment , and

2) even i f t here were a Four t h Amendment vi ol at i on, t he l aw had

not cl ear l y est abl i shed t hat hi s conduct const i t ut ed such a

vi ol at i on.

The di st r i ct cour t di sagr eed and deni ed Duncan' s mot i on

as to t hose t wo cl ai ms. See St amps, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 15158.

Thi s appeal f ol l owed.

I I I .

We revi ew de novo t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of summar y

j udgment on qual i f i ed i mmuni t y grounds. Ri ver dal e Mi l l s Cor p. v.

Pi mpar e, 392 F. 3d 55, 60 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ; cf . Loper a v. Town of

Covent r y, 640 F. 3d 388, 395 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( not i ng t hat t he same


12/32

- 12 -

st andard appl i es t o a gr ant of summary j udgment on qual i f i ed

i mmuni t y grounds) .

The r ul es f or grant i ng qual i f i ed i mmuni t y ar e wel l

est abl i shed. "The doct r i ne of qual i f i ed i mmuni t y shi el ds

of f i ci al s f r om ci vi l l i abi l i t y so l ong as thei r conduct ' does not

vi ol at e cl ear l y est abl i shed st at ut or y or const i t ut i onal r i ght s of

whi ch a r easonabl e person woul d have known. ' " Mul l eni x v. Luna,

136 S. Ct . 305, 308 ( 2015) ( per cur i am) ( quot i ng Pear son v.

Cal l ahan, 555 U. S. 223, 231 ( 2009) ) . "A cl ear l y est abl i shed r i ght

i s one t hat i s ' suf f i ci ent l y cl ear t hat ever y r easonabl e of f i ci al

woul d have under st ood t hat what he i s doi ng vi ol at es t hat r i ght . ' "

I d. ( quot i ng Rei chl e v. Howar ds, 132 S. Ct . 2088, 2093 ( 2012) ) .

Thi s cour t adher es t o a t wo- st ep approach t o det er mi ne

whet her a def endant i s ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y: "We ask

' ( 1) whet her t he f act s al l eged or shown by the pl ai nt i f f make out

a vi ol at i on of a const i t ut i onal r i ght ; and ( 2) i f so, whet her t he

r i ght was "cl ear l y est abl i shed" at t he t i me of t he def endant ' s

al l eged vi ol at i on. ' " 7 Ml odzi nski , 648 F. 3d at 32 ( quot i ng

7 At t hi s st age of t he l i t i gat i on, we do not have"j ur i sdi ct i on t o deci de whet her any const i t ut i onal vi ol at i onsact ual l y occur r ed or t o r esol ve any f act ual di sput es necessar y t omake t hat det ermi nat i on. " Mal donado v. Font anes, 568 F. 3d 263,268 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . Rat her , accept i ng t he f act s i n t he l i ghtmost f avor abl e t o t he pl ai nt i f f s, as we must , we have j ur i sdi ct i ont o det er mi ne whet her " t he pl ai nt i f f s have . . . st at ed cogni zabl econst i t ut i onal vi ol at i ons, " and "whet her t he const i t ut i onal r i ght s. . . al l egedl y vi ol at ed wer e cl ear l y est abl i shed at t he t i me. "I d. I n t hi s post ur e, an of f i cer i s ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y


13/32

- 13 -

Mal donado v. Font anes, 568 F. 3d 263, 269 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ) . The

second pr ong, i n t ur n, has t wo el ement s: "We ask ( a) whether t he

l egal cont our s of t he r i ght i n quest i on wer e suf f i ci ent l y cl ear

t hat a reasonabl e of f i cer woul d have underst ood t hat what he was

doi ng vi ol at ed t he r i ght , and ( b) whet her i n t he par t i cul ar f act ual

cont ext of t he case, a r easonabl e of f i cer woul d have under st ood

t hat hi s conduct vi ol at ed t he r i ght . " I d. at 3233.

Fol l owi ng t hi s f r amewor k, t he di st r i ct cour t hel d on

pr ong one t hat " [ e] ven t he uni nt ent i onal or acci dent al use of

deadl y f or ce i n t he cour se of an i nt ent i onal sei zur e may vi ol at e

t he Four t h Amendment i f t he of f i cer ' s act i ons t hat r esul t ed i n t he

i nj ur y wer e obj ect i vel y unr easonabl e. " St amps, 38 F. Supp. 3d at

152. The cour t t hen f ound t hat " t her e ar e subst ant i al i ssues as

t o t he r easonabl eness of Duncan' s conduct as a whol e, " i d. at 153,

emphasi zi ng t he l ow r i sk posed by St amps and t he hi gh r i sk cr eat ed

by Duncan ai mi ng hi s r i f l e at St amps' s head wi t h t he saf et y of f

and hi s f i nger on t he t r i gger , i d. , and concl uded t hat "a

r easonabl e j ur y coul d f i nd t hat Duncan' s act i ons l eadi ng up t o t he

shoot i ng wer e obj ect i vel y unr easonabl e, and ther ef or e t hat he

"[ i ] f even on pl ai nt i f f s' best case, t her e i s no vi ol at i on of t hei rr i ght s, or t he l aw was not cl ear l y est abl i shed, or an obj ect i vel yr easonabl e of f i cer coul d have concl uded ( even mi st akenl y) t hat hi sor her conduct di d not vi ol at e t hei r r i ght s. " Ml odzi nski , 648F. 3d at 28.


14/32

- 14 -

empl oyed excessi ve f or ce i n vi ol at i on of t he Four t h Amendment , "

i d. at 154. We agr ee.

On pr ong t wo, t he di st r i ct cour t st at ed t hat " i t was

cl ear l y est abl i shed at t he t i me of t he i nci dent t hat t he

uni nt ent i onal or acci dent al use of deadl y f or ce dur i ng a sei zur e

can gi ve r i se t o a const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on i f t he of f i cer has

act ed unr easonabl y i n cr eat i ng t he danger . " I d. The cour t t hen

f ound t hat t he l aw was cl ear l y est abl i shed such t hat Duncan woul d

have been on not i ce t hat hi s conduct vi ol ated t he Four t h Amendment ,

and accor di ngl y deni ed Duncan' s pl ea f or summary j udgment on

qual i f i ed i mmuni t y. I d. at 15458. Agai n, we agr ee.

I V.

A j ur y coul d r easonabl y f i nd t hat Duncan vi ol at ed

St amps' s Four t h Amendment r i ght s. The def endant s' pr i mary

ar gument , i n f act what appear s t o be t hei r pr i nci pal r eason f or

t aki ng t hi s i nt er l ocut or y appeal , i s t hat Duncan' s act i ons ar e not

subj ect t o Four t h Amendment r evi ew because t he shoot i ng i t sel f was

not i nt ent i onal . We r ej ect t hat argument . They t hen make t he

secondar y ar gument t hat even i f Duncan' s act i ons ar e wi t hi n t he

ambi t of Four t h Amendment r evi ew, a j ur y coul d not f i nd t hat hi s

deci si on t o poi nt t he r i f l e at St amps' s head wi t h t he saf et y of f

and hi s f i nger on t he t r i gger was obj ect i vel y unr easonabl e under

t he l aw.


15/32

- 15 -

One poi nt of t he Four t h Amendment i s t o pr otect an

i ndi vi dual f r om a pol i ce of f i cer ' s use of excessi ve f or ce i n

ef f ect uat i ng a sei zur e. See Rai che v. Pi et r oski , 623 F. 3d 30, 36

( 1st Ci r . 2010) . Wher e an of f i cer cr eat es condi t i ons t hat ar e

hi ghl y l i kel y t o cause har m and unnecessar i l y so, and t he r i sk so

cr eat ed act ual l y, but acci dent al l y, causes har m, t he case i s not

r emoved f r om Four t h Amendment scr ut i ny.

To make out a Four t h Amendment excessi ve f or ce cl ai m, a

pl ai nt i f f must show, as an i ni t i al mat t er , t hat t her e was a sei zur e

wi t hi n t he meani ng of t he Four t h Amendment , and then t hat t he

sei zur e was unr easonabl e. "A Four t h Amendment sei zur e occur s when

a pol i ce of f i cer ' has i n some way r est r ai ned t he l i ber t y of a

ci t i zen' t hr ough ' physi cal f or ce or show of aut hor i t y. ' " Uni t ed

St at es v. Camacho, 661 F. 3d 718, 725 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( quot i ng Ter r y

v. Ohi o, 392 U. S. 1, 19 n. 16 ( 1968) ) . A per son i s sei zed by an

of f i cer ' s show of aut hor i t y i f "a r easonabl e per son woul d have

bel i eved t hat he was not f r ee to l eave, " I NS v. Del gado, 466 U. S.

210, 215 ( 1984) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Mendenhal l , 446 U. S.

544, 554 ( 1980) ( opi ni on of St ewar t , J . ) ) , and he i n f act submi t s

t o t he of f i cer ' s asser t i on of aut hor i t y, Cal i f or ni a v. Hodar i D. ,

499 U. S. 621, 626 ( 1991) . The Four t h Amendment i s onl y i mpl i cat ed

i f t he "gover nment al t er mi nat i on of f r eedom of movement [ was]

t hr ough means i nt ent i onal l y appl i ed. " Br ower v. Ct y. of I nyo, 489

U. S. 593, 597 ( 1989) .


16/32

- 16 -

St amps was undoubt edl y sei zed. See Mendenhal l , 446 U. S.

at 554 ( opi ni on of St ewar t , J . ) ( ci t i ng "di spl ay of a weapon by an

of f i cer " as an " [ e] xampl e[ ] of [ a] ci r cumst ance[ ] t hat mi ght

i ndi cat e a sei zur e") . The def endant s do not di sput e t hi s. No

r easonabl e per son coul d possi bl y have f el t f r ee t o l eave wi t h an

assaul t r i f l e poi nt ed di r ect l y at hi s head. And St amps submi t t ed

t o Duncan' s show of aut hor i t y by remai ni ng pr ost r ate on t he gr ound

wi t h hi s hands i n t he ai r .

The def endant s, however , ar gue t hat , as a mat t er of l aw,

t he Fourt h Amendment does not appl y t o Duncan' s conduct because

t he shoot i ng i t sel f was uni nt ent i onal , and t hus not "means

i nt ent i onal l y appl i ed, " Br ower , 489 U. S. at 597 ( emphasi s

omi t t ed) . The hear t of t hei r argument i s t hat r egar dl ess of

Duncan' s act i ons l eadi ng up t o the moment he pul l ed t he t r i gger ,

t he i nadver t ence of t he shot shi el ds hi m f r om Four t h Amendment

scr ut i ny.

We cannot agr ee. The def endant s' pr oposed r ul e has t he

per ver se ef f ect of i mmuni zi ng r i sky behavi or onl y when t he

f or eseeabl e har m of t hat behavi or comes t o pass. 8

8 Consi der , f or exampl e, what woul d have happened hadever ythi ng el se been t he same but f or t he l ast act : t he gun wasnot f i r ed. Whether or not i t was f ound t o be a Four t h Amendmentvi ol at i on, t her e i s no quest i on t hat Duncan' s conduct woul d besuscept i bl e t o Four t h Amendment scr ut i ny. See Ml odzi nski , 648F. 3d at 38. St amps coul d have br ought a 1983 cl ai m j ust as t hepl ai nt i f f s di d i n Ml odzi nski , and t he case woul d have pr oceeded asnor mal . I t makes no sense, t hen, t o f i nd t hat t he exact same


17/32

- 17 -

The Supreme Court ' s opi ni on i n Br ower i l l ust r at es

pr eci sel y why t he def endant s' r easoni ng i s f l awed. I n Br ower , t he

pol i ce were engaged i n a hi gh- speed chase wi t h a suspect , Br ower ,

who was dr i vi ng a st ol en vehi cl e. I d. at 594. I n an ef f or t t o

st op hi m, t he pol i ce posi t i oned "an 18- wheel t r actor - t r ai l er . . .

acr oss bot h l anes of a t wo- l ane hi ghway i n t he pat h of Br ower ' s

f l i ght , " "conceal ed[ ] t hi s r oadbl ock by pl aci ng i t behi nd a cur ve

and l eavi ng i t uni l l umi nat ed, " and "posi t i oned a pol i ce car , wi t h

i t s headl i ght s on, bet ween Br ower ' s oncomi ng vehi cl e and t he t r uck,

so t hat Br ower woul d be ' bl i nded' on hi s appr oach. " I d. Br ower

was ki l l ed when he crashed i nt o t he t r act or - t r ai l er , and hi s hei r s

br ought a 1983 cl ai m agai nst t he count y. I d.

The Court f aced t he quest i on whet her t he use of t he

r oadbl ock const i t ut ed a sei zur e wi t hi n t he meani ng of t he Four t h

Amendment . The gui di ng pr i nci pl e i dent i f i ed by t he Cour t was t hat

a sei zur e onl y occur s " when t her e i s a gover nment al t er mi nat i on of

f r eedom of movement t hr ough means i nt ent i onal l y appl i ed. " I d. at

597. Fi ndi ng t hat t he use of t he r oadbl ock was a "means

i nt ent i onal l y appl i ed, " t he Cour t st at ed:

I n determi ni ng whether t he means t hat

t ermi nates t he f r eedomof movement i s t he verymeans t hat t he gover nment i ntended we cannotdr aw t oo f i ne a l i ne, or we wi l l be dr i ven t osayi ng that one i s not sei zed who has beenst opped by t he acci dent al di schar ge of a gun

conduct becomes unr evi ewabl e because Duncan acci dent al l y f i r ed t hegun.


18/32

- 18 -

wi t h whi ch he was meant onl y t o be bl udgeoned,or by a bul l et i n t he hear t t hat was meantonl y f or t he l eg. We t hi nk i t enough f or asei zure that a person be st opped by t he veryi nst r ument al i t y set i n mot i on or put i n pl acei n or der t o achi eve t hat r esul t .

I d. at 59899 ( emphasi s added) . 9 Awar e t hat i dent i f yi ng t he

r oadbl ock as a sei zur e was not enough al one t o make out a Four t h

Amendment cl ai m, t he Cour t not ed t hat " [ p] et i t i oner s can cl ai mt he

r i ght t o r ecover f or Br ower ' s deat h onl y because the

unr easonabl eness t hey al l ege consi st s pr eci sel y of set t i ng up t he

r oadbl ock i n such manner as t o be l i kel y t o ki l l hi m. " I d. at

599.

9 The def endant s appear t o qui bbl e over t he meani ng of"i nst r ument al i t y, " asser t i ng t hat onl y the di spl ay of t he gun, andnot t he bul l et , was "i nt ent i onal l y appl i ed, " and t her ef or e t he

shoot i ng i t sel f i s out si de t he Four t h Amendment . But t hi s t ype ofhai r spl i t t i ng was pl ai nl y rej ect ed by the Supr eme Cour t i n Br owerwhen i t of f ered t he exampl e of a suspect who i s " st opped by t heacci dent al di schar ge of a gun wi t h whi ch he was meant onl y t o bebl udgeoned. " Br ower , 489 U. S. at 59899. I n t hi s cont ext , wedecl i ne t o ent er t ai n t he f i ct i on t hat t he bul l et i s somehow an"i nst r ument al i t y" di st i nct f r om t he r i f l e. We r ej ect as wel l t hedef endant s' at t empt t o dr aw a l i ne between the use of a gun as ashow of aut hor i t y and t he use of a gun t o i nf l i ct physi cal har m.We f i nd no r eason i n Br ower , nor can we f i nd a pr i nci pl ed r eason,t o di st i ngui sh bet ween at t empt i ng to sei ze someone by poi nt i ng agun at hi s head, usi ng t he gun as a bl udgeon, or even t hr owi ng t hegun or st r at egi cal l y pl aci ng i t such t hat t he i ndi vi dual t r i psover i t ; i n al l of t hese si t uat i ons t he gun i s "t he ver yi nst r ument al i t y set i n mot i on or put i n pl ace i n or der t o" sei zet he i ndi vi dual . I d. at 599. I ndeed, t he Cour t i n Br ower di d notf r et over such an ar gument , char act er i zi ng t he t r act or - t r ai l er as"not j ust a si gni f i cant show of aut hor i t y t o i nduce a vol unt ar yst op, but . . . desi gned t o pr oduce a st op by physi cal i mpact i fvol unt ar y compl i ance does not occur . " I d. at 598.


19/32

- 19 -

Br ower st ands f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat an of f i cer can be

hel d l i abl e under t he Four t h Amendment f or an i nt ent i onal but

unr easonabl y dangerous sei zur e, even when t he means empl oyed t o

ef f ectuat e t he sei zur e r esul t - - uni nt ent i onal l y - - i n someone' s

deat h. I n t he wake of Br ower , t hi s cour t af f i r med t hat

"uni nt ent i onal conduct [ can] t r i gger [ ] Four t h Amendment

l i abi l i t y. " Landol - Ri ver a v. Cr uz Cosme, 906 F. 2d 791, 796 n. 9

( 1st Ci r . 1990) . 10 So have ot her ci r cui t s.

Ther e i s wi despread agr eement among t he ci r cui t s t hat

have addr essed t he i ssue t hat a cl ai m i s st at ed under t he Four t h

Amendment f or obj ect i vel y unr easonabl e conduct dur i ng the

ef f ectuat i on of a sei zur e t hat r esul t s i n t he uni nt ent i onal

di schar ge of an of f i cer ' s f i r ear m. That r easoni ng under l i es the

deci si ons i n r ecent cases l i ke Est at e of Bl eck ex r el . Chur chi l l

v. Ci t y of Al amosa, 540 F. App' x 866, 87477 ( 10t h Ci r . 2013) ,

cer t . deni ed, 134 S. Ct . 2845 ( 2014) , and Wat son v. Br yant , 532 F.

App' x 453, 45758 ( 5t h Ci r . 2013) ( per cur i am) ( "An undi sput edl y

10 Cont r ar y t o t he def endant s' asser t i on, our opi ni on i nLandol - Ri ver a i s not i nconsi st ent wi t h our concl usi on her e. Ther e,a pol i ce of f i cer acci dent al l y shot a host age whi l e t r yi ng t o st opa f l eei ng f el on. Landol - Ri ver a, 906 F. 2d at 79192. Rest i ng onBr ower ' s i nt ent r equi r ement , we r easoned t hat i t was not t heof f i cer ' s i nt ent t o sei ze t he host age: "I t i s i nt er vent i on di r ectedat a speci f i c i ndi vi dual t hat f ur ni shes t he basi s f or a Four t hAmendment cl ai m. " I d. at 796. That hol di ng si mpl y has nor el evance her e si nce t her e i s no quest i on that St amps was t hei nt ended t ar get of Duncan' s sei zur e. Landol - Ri ver a speci f i cal l y"emphasi ze[ d] t hat our deci si on does not mean t hat Four t h Amendmentconsequences may never r esul t f r om uni nt ended act i on. " I d.


20/32

- 20 -

acci dent al shoot i ng . . . does not end t he i nqui r y. [ The of f i cer ]

st i l l may have vi ol ated t he Four t h Amendment i f he acted

obj ect i vel y unr easonabl y by deci di ng t o make an ar r est , by dr awi ng

hi s pi st ol , or by not r ehol st er i ng i t bef or e at t empt i ng t o handcuf f

[ t he pl ai nt i f f ] . ") . As t he en banc cour t st at ed i n Henr y v.

Pur nel l , 652 F. 3d 524 ( 4t h Ci r . 2011) ( en banc) , cer t . deni ed, 132

S. Ct . 781 ( 2011) , "[ a] l l act i ons, . . . mi st aken or ot her wi se,

ar e subj ect t o an obj ect i ve t est , " i d. at 532. Of cour se, cases

mor e r ecent t han t he i nci dent do not est abl i sh pr e- i nci dent not i ce

of cl ear l y est abl i shed r ul es. But t he r easoni ng t hey appl y i s

der i ved f r om pr e- 2011 cases. See Tor r es v. Ci t y of Mader a, 524

F. 3d 1053, 105657 ( 9t h Ci r . 2008) ; Henr y v. Pur nel l , 501 F. 3d

374, 37982 ( 4t h Ci r . 2007) ; Tal l man v. El i zabet ht own Pol i ce Dep' t ,

167 F. App' x 459, 463 ( 6t h Ci r . 2006) ( "Ther e i s no evi dence f r om

whi ch a j ur y coul d concl ude t hat [ t he of f i cer ] i nt ent i onal l y

di schar ged hi s weapon. We t heref ore f ocus t he r easonabl eness

i nqui r y on [ t he of f i cer ' s] act i ons l eadi ng up t o t he uni nt ent i onal

di schar ge of t he weapon. " ( ci t i ng Leber v. Smi t h, 773 F. 2d 101,

105 ( 6t h Ci r . 1985) ( "I t i s undi sput ed t hat [ t he of f i cer ]

uni nt ent i onal l y di schar ged hi s weapon as he sl i pped and f el l ; t he

quest i on i s whet her he act ed r easonabl y i n dr awi ng hi s gun. " ) ) ) ;

Pl easant v. Zami eski , 895 F. 2d 272, 27677 ( 6t h Ci r . 1990) . 11

11 Duncan at t empt s t o undermi ne t he cl ear wei ght of t hi saut hor i t y by suggest i ng t hat some of t hese cases i nvol ved an


21/32

- 21 -

The def endant s poi nt t o several ci r cui t cases t hat t hey

cl ai mst and f or t he opposi t e concl usi on, most not abl y Dodd v. Ci t y

of Nor wi ch, 827 F. 2d 1 ( 2d Ci r . 1987) . See Spei ght v. Gr i ggs, 620

F. App' x 806 ( 11t h Ci r . 2015) ( per cur i am) ; Powel l v. Sl emp, 585

F. App' x 427 ( 9t h Ci r . 2014) ; Cul osi v. Bul l ock, 596 F. 3d 195 ( 4t h

Ci r . 2010) . They al so r el y on di st r i ct cour t opi ni ons. See, e. g. ,

Br i ce v. Ci t y of Yor k, 528 F. Supp. 2d 504 ( M. D. Pa. 2007) ; Gr eene

v. Ci t y of Hammond, No. 2: 05- CV- 83, 2007 WL 3333367 ( N. D. I nd.

Nov. 6, 2007) ; Cl ar k v. Buchko, 936 F. Supp. 212 ( D. N. J . 1996) ;

Tr oubl ef i el d v. Ci t y of Har r i sbur g, Bureau of Pol i ce, 789 F. Supp.

160 ( M. D. Pa. ) , af f ' d, 980 F. 2d 724 ( 3d Ci r . 1992) ( t abl e

deci si on) ; Gl asco v. Bal l ar d, 768 F. Supp. 176 ( E. D. Va. 1991) .

Onl y one case that t he def endant s ci t e, Dodd, i s a publ i shed

appel l at e cour t opi ni on whose hol di ng suppor t s t hei r posi t i on. 12

of f i cer ' s i nt ent i onal conduct t hat r est ed on a mi st ake of f act ,r at her t han an of f i cer ' s whol l y uni nt ent i onal conduct . The casesdo not spl i t such hai r s, nor do we see any reason t hey shoul d.When an of f i cer ' s i nt ent i onal act i ons i n ef f ect i ng a sei zur e creat ean unr easonabl e r i sk of physi cal harm, t he Four t h Amendment hasal r eady been vi ol at ed; whet her i t i s uni nt ended act i on or i nt endedbut mi st aken act i on t hat ul t i mat el y act ual i zes t he har m ( or ,i ndeed, whet her no physi cal har m comes t o pass at al l ) i si mmat er i al .

12 Cul osi di d not expr essl y hol d t hat an acci dent alshoot i ng t hat r esul t s f r om an of f i cer ' s i nt ent i onal use of af i r ear m i s i mmune f r om Four t h Amendment scr ut i ny. Rat her , t heFour t h Ci r cui t , not i ng t hat t he of f i cer ' s appeal cent er ed onf act ual and not l egal i ssues, di smi ssed t he appeal f or l ack ofj ur i sdi ct i on. Cul osi , 596 F. 3d at 20103. At most , t he Four t hCi r cui t st at ed i n di ct a t hat t he f ol l owi ng "f r ami ng of t he i ssuei s qui t e cor r ect ": "[ W] as t he shoot i ng deat h of [ t he pl ai nt i f f ]


22/32

- 22 -

t he r esul t , on t he one hand, of an i nt ent i onal act by [ t hedef endant ] , or , on t he ot her hand, was i t t he r esul t of a t r agi cand deepl y regr et t abl e, uni nt ent i onal , acci dent al , di schar ge of

[ t he def endant ' s] f i r ear m?" I d. at 200. Mor eover , t he Four t hCi r cui t ' s subsequent en banc opi ni on i n Henr y accor ds wi t h ourr easoni ng. See Henr y, 652 F. 3d at 532.

Nei t her di d Powel l hol d what t he def endant s at t r i but e t oi t . Ther e, t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t ski pped t he Four t h Amendment i nqui r yent i r el y and pr oceeded di r ect l y t o t he quest i on of cl ear l yest abl i shed l aw. Powel l , 585 F. App' x at 42728. I t di d not e,however , t hat si nce t her e was no evi dence t hat t he pol i ce of f i ceri nt ent i onal l y shot t he pl ai nt i f f , "we f ocus on what t he di st r i ctcour t char acter i zed as [ t he pl ai nt i f f ' s] ' pr i mar y t heor y ofl i abi l i t y' - - t hat [ t he def endant ] used excessi ve f or ce when he

at t empt ed t o r est r ai n [ t he pl ai nt i f f ] wi t h hi s f i r ear mdr awn, " i d.at 427, whi ch woul d suggest t hat t he cour t ' s vi ews are i n l i newi t h our s. The cour t r ever sed t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al ofsummary j udgment on qual i f i ed i mmuni t y because i t f ound t hat t herewas no "exi st i ng l aw [ t hat ] woul d have made i t ' suf f i ci ent l y cl ear 't o a r easonabl e of f i cer i n [ t he of f i cer ' s] posi t i on t hat at t empt i ngt o r est r ai n [ t he pl ai nt i f f ] wi t h hi s gun dr awn vi ol at ed her Four t hAmendment r i ght s, " and t hus t he of f i cer "was ent i t l ed t o qual i f i edi mmuni t y. " I d. Thi s hol di ng says not hi ng about t he Ni nt hCi r cui t ' s vi ews on whet her t he acci dent al r esul t s of i nt ent i onalconduct can gi ve r i se t o Four t h Amendment l i abi l i t y. I n f act , i t s

hol di ng i n Tor r es woul d seem t o suggest t hat i t agr ees wi t h ouranal ysi s. See Tor r es, 524 F. 3d at 105657.Fi nal l y, Spei ght al so pr ovi des l i t t l e ai d t o t he

def endant s. I n Spei ght , t he di st r i ct cour t expl i ci t l y hel d t hatbecause "[ t he of f i cer ' s] uni nt ent i onal shoot i ng of [ t he pl ai nt i f f ]dur i ng t he cour se of t he ar r est [ di d] not i nsul at e hi m f r oml i abi l i t y under t he Four t h Amendment , " t he cour t needed t odet er mi ne "whet her [ t he of f i cer ' s] conduct l eadi ng up t o t he gun' sacci dent al di schar ge was obj ect i vel y r easonabl e. " Spei ght v.Gr i ggs, 13 F. Supp. 3d 1298, 132021 ( N. D. Ga. 2013) . But becauset he di st r i ct cour t f ound t he of f i cer ' s conduct obj ect i vel yr easonabl e, i t decl i ned t o addr ess t he "cl ear l y est abl i shed" pr ongof t he qual i f i ed i mmuni t y anal ysi s. I d. at 1323. On appeal , t heEl event h Ci r cui t di d not addr ess t he l ower cour t ' s anal ysi s ont hi s poi nt . Rat her , i t mer el y stat ed t hat "[ i ] n t hi s ci r cui t ,t her e i s no cl ear l y est abl i shed r i ght t o be f r ee f r om t heacci dent al appl i cat i on of f or ce dur i ng ar r est . " Spei ght , 620 F.App' x at 809 ( emphasi s added) . I n other words, Spei ght expr essedno vi ew on whet her or not t he di st r i ct cour t ' s under l yi ngconst i t ut i onal anal ysi s was sound.


23/32

- 23 -

We f i nd t hese cases r el i ed on by t he def endant s t o be

di st i ngui shabl e i n l i ght of Br ower ' s cl ear command. To be sur e,

both Dodd and Br ower r ecogni ze t hat Four t h Amendment l i abi l i t y

onl y at t aches t o i nt ent i onal conduct . But t o t he ext ent t hat Dodd,

or any of t he ot her cases ci t ed by t he def endant s, can be read f or

t he pr oposi t i on t hat uni nt ended har ms ar i si ng f r omi nt ent i onal and

unr easonabl e pol i ce conduct ar e never wi t hi n t he pur vi ew of t he

Four t h Amendment , t hey are not good l aw i n l i ght of Br ower . 13

Our deci si on t oday, on t he ot her hand, f l ows necessar i l y

f r om Br ower . Whi l e i n Br ower "t he ver y i nst r ument al i t y set i n

mot i on" was t he t r act or - t r ai l er r oadbl ock, her e i t was t he assaul t

r i f l e. I n bot h cases, t he i nst r ument al i t y was set i n mot i on i n a

hi ghl y danger ous f ashi on, and t he resul t i ng deat hs wer e acci dent s.

But i n nei t her case does - - nor shoul d - - t he acci dent al r esul t of

t he dangerous conduct prevent Four t h Amendment r evi ew. As t he

Br ower Cour t not ed, t he cor e of t he pl ai nt i f f s' case "consi st [ ed]

pr eci sel y of set t i ng up t he r oadbl ock i n such manner as t o be

l i kel y t o ki l l . " Br ower , 489 U. S. at 599. We need onl y r epl ace

13 We are not persuaded t hat t he ci t at i on t o Dodd i n a

f oot not e i n Landol - Ri ver a si gni f i es t hi s ci r cui t ' s adopt i on ofDodd. See Landol - Ri ver a, 906 F. 2d at 796 n. 9. We do not r ead t heneut r al phr ase, " [ c] ompar e t hi s st atement i n Br ower wi t h Dodd v.Ci t y of Nor wi ch" as an endor sement of Dodd' s hol di ng. I f anythi ng,Dodd i s ci t ed i n t he f oot not e f or t he f act t hat t he of f i cer ' s gunhad di schar ged af t er t he suspect had i ni t i at ed a st r uggl e wi t h t heof f i cer , not dur i ng t he of f i cer ' s ef f ectuat i on of t he sei zur e, andwas t heref ore not wi t hi n t he pur vi ew of t he Four t h Amendment . I d.


24/32

- 24 -

"set t i ng up t he r oadbl ock" wi t h "poi nt i ng t he r i f l e" t o ar r i ve at

t he cl ai m pr esent ed i n t hi s case.

V.

As t o t he def endant s' second ar gument , we thi nk i t cl ose

t o sel f - evi dent t hat a j ur y coul d f i nd as a mat t er of f act t hat

Duncan' s act i ons wer e not r easonabl e, and no extensi ve di scussi on

beyond what we have sai d i s r equi r ed. The quest i on t hen moves t o

whet her t he l aw was cl ear l y est abl i shed. We ask "whet her t he l egal

cont our s of t he r i ght i n quest i on wer e suf f i ci ent l y cl ear t hat a

r easonabl e of f i cer woul d have underst ood that what he was doi ng

vi ol at ed t he r i ght , " and t hen consi der "whet her i n t he par t i cul ar

f act ual cont ext of t he case, a r easonabl e of f i cer woul d have

under st ood t hat hi s conduct vi ol at ed t he r i ght . " Ml odzi nski , 648

F. 3d at 3233. Whet her t he l aw was cl ear l y est abl i shed i s i t sel f

a quest i on of l aw f or t he cour t . El der v. Hol l oway, 510 U. S. 510,

516 ( 1994) .

I n conduct i ng t hi s anal ysi s, we ar e mi ndf ul of t he

Supr eme Cour t ' s most r ecent pr onouncement on t hi s i ssue i n

Mul l eni x. I t caut i oned t he cour t s "not t o def i ne cl ear l y

est abl i shed l aw at a hi gh l evel of gener al i t y, " and r ei t er at ed

t hat "[ t ] he di sposi t i ve quest i on i s ' whet her t he vi ol at i ve nat ur e

of par t i cul ar conduct i s cl ear l y est abl i shed. ' " Mul l eni x, 136

S. Ct . at 308 ( quot i ng Ashcr of t v. al - Ki dd, 563 U. S. 731, 742

( 2011) ) . I t not ed t hat " [ s] uch speci f i ci t y i s especi al l y i mpor t ant


25/32

- 25 -

i n the Four t h Amendment cont ext , where t he Cour t has r ecogni zed

t hat ' [ i ] t i s somet i mes di f f i cul t f or an of f i cer t o det er mi ne how

t he r el evant l egal doct r i ne, her e excessi ve f or ce, wi l l appl y t o

t he f actual si t uat i on t he of f i cer conf r ont s. ' " I d. ( second

al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Sauci er v. Kat z, 533 U. S. 194,

205 ( 2001) , overr ul ed i n part on other gr ounds by Pearson, 555

U. S. at 236) . The Cour t expl ai ned t hat t he "cor r ect i nqui r y" i n

t he Four t h Amendment cont ext i s " whet her i t was cl ear l y est abl i shed

t hat t he Four t h Amendment pr ohi bi t ed t he of f i cer ' s conduct i n t he

' s i t uat i on [ she] conf r ont ed. ' " I d. at 309 ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal )

( quot i ng Br osseau v. Haugen, 543 U. S. 194, 200 ( 2004) ( per

cur i am) ) .

We bel i eve t hat t he st ate of t he l aw was cl ear such t hat

a r easonabl e of f i cer i n Duncan' s posi t i on woul d have under st ood

t hat poi nt i ng hi s l oaded assaul t r i f l e at t he head of a pr one,

non- r esi st ant , i nnocent per son who pr esent s no danger , wi t h t he

saf et y of f and a f i nger on t he t r i gger , const i t ut ed excessi ve f or ce

i n vi ol at i on of t hat per son' s Four t h Amendment r i ght s. 14 I n

14 As t o t he Br ower i ssue, we need not bel abor what we havej ust sai d. We do not bel i eve t hat Dodd, whi ch was deci ded bef or eBr ower , or a smat t er i ng of di st r i ct cour t cases render ed t he l awuncl ear on t hi s poi nt . See Camr et a v. Gr eene, 131 S. Ct . 2020,2033 n. 7 ( 2011) ( "[ D] i st r i ct cour t deci si ons - - unl i ke t hose f r omt he cour t s of appeal s - - do not necessar i l y set t l e const i t ut i onalst andar ds or pr event r epeat ed cl ai ms of qual i f i ed i mmuni t y, " andt her ef or e " [ m] any Cour t s of Appeal s . . . decl i ne t o consi derdi st r i ct cour t pr ecedent when det er mi ni ng i f const i t ut i onal r i ght sar e cl ear l y est abl i shed f or pur poses of qual i f i ed i mmuni t y. ") .


26/32

- 26 -

concl udi ng t hat t hi s case must go t o a j ur y f or det er mi nat i on, we

r el y on Br ower and on our pr i or ci r cui t pr ecedent , and we conf i r m

our r ul i ng by observi ng t hat cl ear l y set t l ed Four t h Amendment l aw

as of t he t i me of St amps' s death f ul l y cohered wi t h commonl y

accept ed pr ecept s on appr opr i at e use of f i r ear ms and appr opr i at e

pol i ce pr ocedur es.

Our opi ni on i n Ml odzi nski speaks di r ect l y t o t hi s i ssue.

Ther e, we af f i r med t he deni al of summar y j udgment on qual i f i ed

i mmuni t y t o of f i cer s who, i n 2006, det ai ned t wo i nnocent and

compl i ant women at gunpoi nt dur i ng a l at e- ni ght pol i ce r ai d

execut i ng a sear ch war r ant , i ssued on pr obabl e cause t o bel i eve

t hat t he sevent een- year- ol d boy who l i ved at t he women' s r esi dence

had sever el y beat en another boy wi t h an expandabl e ni ght st i ck. 15

Ml odzi nski , 648 F. 3d at 2931. The f i r st woman, t he f i f t een- year -

ol d si st er of t he suspect , was shoved t o t he f l oor , handcuf f ed,

and "det ai ned wi t h an assaul t r i f l e hel d t o her head f or seven t o

t en mi nut es. " I d. at 37. We f ound t hat " [ a] r easonabl y compet ent

of f i cer . . . woul d not have t hought t hat i t was per mi ssi bl e t o

poi nt an assaul t r i f l e at t he head of an i nnocent , non- t hr eat eni ng,

and handcuf f ed f i f t een- year - ol d gi r l f or seven t o ten mi nut es, f ar

15 Ml odzi nski was deci ded on J une 2, 2011, f i ve mont hs af t erSt amps' s deat h, and so was obvi ousl y not on t he books at t he t i meof t he shoot i ng. However , we deni ed qual i f i ed i mmuni t y i nMl odzi nski because we f ound t hat t he l aw was cl ear l y est abl i shedon t he f act s of t hat case as of , at l east , August 2, 2006, t hedat e of t he r ai d. See Ml odzi nski , 648 F. 3d at 27, 3739.


27/32

- 27 -

beyond t he t i me i t t ook t o secur e t he pr emi ses and arr est and

r emove t he onl y suspect . " I d. at 38. The second woman, t he

suspect ' s mot her , was hel d at gunpoi nt f or t hi r t y mi nut es whi l e

f or ced t o si t near l y nude i n her bed. I d. at 3839. Though we

r ecogni zed t hat t he of f i cer s "di d i ni t i al l y have t o make spl i t

second deci si ons t o assess [ t he mot her ' s] t hr eat l evel and t he

possi bl e need f or r est r ai nt , t hat does not char act er i ze t he ent i r e

per i od i n the bedr oom" because " i t qui ckl y became cl ear " t hat she

was not a suspect , was compl i ant wi t h orders, and di d not pose a

danger t o t he of f i cer s. I d. at 39.

Thi s case bear s a r emar kabl e r esembl ance t o Ml odzi nski .

Bot h cases i nvol ve of f i cer s poi nt i ng f i r ear ms at t he heads of

i nnocent , compl i ant i ndi vi dual s dur i ng the cour se of SWAT t eam

r ai ds at r esi dences t hought t o be occupi ed by ot her i ndi vi dual s

who were dangerous. And nei t her t he si st er nor t he mother i n

Ml odzi nski , nor St amps, was t hought t o be danger ous. Ml odzi nski

af f i r ms t hat as of at l east August 2, 2006, t he dat e of t he r ai d

at i ssue i n t hat case, t he st at e of t he l aw was cl ear enough t o

put pol i ce of f i cer s on not i ce t hat a war r ant t o conduct a SWAT

r ai d does not gr ant t hem l i cense t o ai m t hei r weapons at t he heads

of submi ss i ve and nont hr eat eni ng byst anders. 16 As we r ecogni zed,

16 Duncan al l udes t o our observat i on i n Ml odzi nski t hat t heout come of t he case may have var i ed i f , f or exampl e, t he of f i cerhad poi nt ed t he gun at t he mot her ' s head " f or onl y a ver y shor tper i od. " Ml odzi nski , 648 F. 3d at 40. I n Ml odzi nski , t hough, i t


28/32

- 28 -

t hi s i s especi al l y t r ue wher e, as her e, a j ur y coul d f i nd t hat t he

of f i cer i s not f or ced t o act based on a spl i t - second j udgment about

t he appr opr i at e l evel of f or ce t o empl oy. See i d. ; cf . Gr aham v.

Connor , 490 U. S. 386, 39697 ( 1989) . Revi ewi ng t he f act s i n t he

l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he pl ai nt i f f s, a j ur y coul d f i nd t hat

Duncan had adequat e t i me t o det ermi ne t hat t her e was no r easonabl e

t hr eat posed by St amps and t o cal i br at e hi s use of f or ce

accor di ngl y. See Henr y, 652 F. 3d at 533 ( " I t bears emphasi s t hat

t hi s al so was not a si t uat i on i n whi ch ci r cumst ances depr i ved [ t he

of f i cer ] of t he oppor t uni t y t o f ul l y consi der whi ch weapon he had

dr awn bef or e f i r i ng. . . . Ther e was no evi dence i ndi cat i ng t hat

[ t he of f i cer ] di d not have t he spl i t - second he woul d have needed

t o at l east gl ance at t he weapon he was hol di ng t o ver i f y that i t

was i ndeed hi s Taser and not hi s Gl ock. " ) .

I n l i ght of Ml odzi nski , as wel l as l ong- st andi ng

pr ecedent f r om ot her ci r cui t s, a r easonabl e of f i cer i n ear l y 2011

woul d have under st ood that Duncan' s conduct , as a j ur y coul d f i nd

i t , vi ol at ed cl ear l y est abl i shed Four t h Amendment l aw. See, e. g. ,

Espi nosa v. Ci t y & Ct y. of S. F. , 598 F. 3d 528, 53738 ( 9t h Ci r .

2010) ( denyi ng summary j udgment on qual i f i ed i mmuni t y t o of f i cers

who poi nt ed l oaded guns at a suspect "gi ven t he l ow l evel of

t hr eat " ) ; Bai r d v. Renbar ger , 576 F. 3d 340, 345 ( 7t h Ci r . 2009)

was not assumed t hat t he of f i cer s had t ur ned of f t hei r guns'saf et i es or t hat t hey had kept t hei r f i nger s on t he t r i gger s.


29/32

- 29 -

( denyi ng summary j udgment on qual i f i ed i mmuni t y and not i ng t hat

"gun poi nt i ng when an i ndi vi dual pr esent s no danger i s unr easonabl e

and vi ol at es t he Four t h Amendment " ) ; Tekl e v. Uni t ed St at es, 511

F. 3d 839, 84548 ( 9t h Ci r . 2007) ( denyi ng summary j udgment on

qual i f i ed i mmuni t y and not i ng t hat " [ w] e have hel d si nce 1984 t hat

poi nt i ng a gun at a suspect ' s head can const i t ut e excessi ve f or ce

i n t hi s ci r cui t , " i d. at 847) ; Hol l and ex r el . Over dor f f v.

Harr i ngt on, 268 F. 3d 1179, 119293, 119697 ( 10t h Ci r . 2001)

( denyi ng summary j udgment on qual i f i ed i mmuni t y and hol di ng, " [ w] e

can f i nd no subst ant i al gr ounds f or a r easonabl e of f i cer t o

concl ude t hat t her e was l egi t i mat e j ust i f i cat i on f or cont i nui ng t o

hol d t he young peopl e out si de the resi dence di r ect l y at gunpoi nt

af t er t hey had compl et el y submi t t ed t o t he SWAT deput i es' i ni t i al

show of f or ce, " i d. at 1197) ; J acobs v. Ci t y of Chi . , 215 F. 3d

758, 77374 ( 7t h Ci r . 2000) ( r ever si ng di st r i ct cour t ' s gr ant of

mot i on t o di smi ss on qual i f i ed i mmuni t y t o of f i cer s who "poi nt ed

a l oaded weapon at [ t he pl ai nt i f f ] f or an extended per i od of t i me

when t hey al l egedl y had no reason t o suspect t hat he was a

dangerous cr i mi nal , or i ndeed that he had commi t t ed any cr i me at

al l , [ t he pl ai nt i f f ] was unar med, and when [ t he pl ai nt i f f ] had

done not hi ng ei t her t o at t empt t o evade t he of f i cer s or t o

i nt er f er e wi t h t he execut i on of t hei r dut i es") ; McDonal d v.

Haski ns, 966 F. 2d 292, 29295 ( 7t h Ci r . 1992) ( af f i r mi ng di st r i ct

cour t ' s deni al of mot i on t o di smi ss on qual i f i ed i mmuni t y wher e an


30/32

- 30 -

of f i cer hel d a gun t o the head of a ni ne- year - ol d boy who "posed

no t hr eat t o t he saf et y of [ t he of f i cer ] or any ot her pol i ce

of f i cer pr esent , was not act i vel y r esi st i ng ar r est or at t empt i ng

t o evade ar r est by f l eei ng, . . . was not engaged i n any assaul t i ve

behavi or t owar d [ t he of f i cer ] or t he ot her of f i cer s" and "was

nei t her under ar r est nor suspect ed of commi t t i ng a cr i me, was not

ar med, and was not i nt er f er i ng or at t empt i ng t o i nt er f er e wi t h

[ t he of f i cer s] i n t he execut i on of t hei r dut i es, " i d. at 29293) ;

cf . Robi nson v. Sol ano Ct y. , 278 F. 3d 1007, 1014 ( 9t h Ci r . 2002)

( en banc) ( not i ng t hat "under more ext r eme ci r cumst ances t he

poi nt i ng of a gun has been hel d t o vi ol at e even t he mor e r i gor ous

st andar d . . . [ t hat ] conduct [ be] so excessi ve t hat i t ' shock[ s]

t he consci ence. ' " ( ci t i ng McKenzi e v. Lamb, 738 F. 2d 1005, 1010

( 9t h Ci r . 1984) ; Bl ack v. St ephens, 662 F. 2d 181, 18889 ( 3d Ci r .

1981) ) ) .

We acknowl edge t hat each of t hese cases pr esented uni que

set s of f act s t hat i n some r espect s di f f er f r omt he f act s pr esent ed

i n t he case at hand. Nonet hel ess, t hei r f act ual di f f er ences do

not obscur e or det r act f r om t he st r ai ght f or war d r ul e t hat ,

col l ect i vel y, t hey al l espouse. When consi der ed al ongsi de

Ml odzi nski , t hese cases pl ai nl y put pol i ce of f i cer s i n t hese

ci r cumst ances on not i ce t hat poi nt i ng a f i r ear m at a per son i n a

manner t hat cr eat es a r i sk of har m i ncommensurat e wi t h any pol i ce

necess i t y can amount t o a Four t h Amendment vi ol at i on. On t he f act s


31/32

- 31 -

as a j ur y mi ght f i nd t hem t o be i n t hi s case ( saf et y of f , f i nger

on t he t r i gger , and gun poi nt ed at t he head of a pr one person known

not t o pose any par t i cul ar r i sk) , i t was cl ear under exi st i ng l aw

t hat Duncan used hi s gun i n a manner t hat unl awf ul l y cr eat ed such

a r i sk.

I n l i ght of what we have j ust sai d, we concl ude t hat

Duncan, "i n t he ' si t uat i on [ he] conf r ont ed, ' " Mul l eni x, 136 S.

Ct . at 309 ( quot i ng Br osseau, 543 U. S. at 200) , was on not i ce that

hi s act i ons coul d be f ound vi ol at i ve of St amps' s Four t h Amendment

r i ght t o be f r ee f r om excessi ve f or ce. Exi st i ng pr ecedent pl aces

t hi s concl usi on "beyond debat e, " i d. at 308 ( quot i ng al - Ki dd, 563

U. S. at 741) .

We f i nd f ur t her conf i r mat i on f or our concl usi on i n t he

exper t t est i mony pr esent ed by t he pl ai nt i f f s. I n Mul l eni x, t he

Cour t par r i ed t he di ssent ' s cr i t i que of t he r easonabl eness of t he

of f i cer ' s deci si on- maki ng by st at i ng t hat "ot her s wi t h mor e

exper i ence anal yze t he i ssues di f f er ent l y, " and poi nt i ng t o a br i ef

f i l ed by t he Nat i onal Associ at i on of Pol i ce Or gani zat i ons

di scussi ng t he opt i ons and r i sks i nf or mi ng t he r easonabl eness of

t he of f i cer ' s deci si on- maki ng. Mul l eni x, 136 S. Ct . at 311. Her e,

i n cont r ast , we have a pr ocedur al post ur e and a recor d suppor t i ng

t he concl usi on t hat pol i ce of f i cer s ar e cust omar i l y t aught not t o

do what Duncan di d. See J enni ngs v. J ones, 499 F. 3d 2, 1920 ( 1st

Ci r . 2007) . Thi s evi dence r ei nf or ces t he concl usi on t hat t he


32/32

unr easonabl eness of Duncan' s conduct , as a j ur y coul d f i nd i t , was

wel l est abl i shed. Not onl y had t he unr easonabl eness of Duncan' s

al l eged conduct been cl ear l y est abl i shed as a l egal mat t er , but i t

had al so been wel l est abl i shed i n a manner t hat i s act ual l y usef ul

t o pol i ce of f i cer s, el i mi nat i ng t he r i sk t hat j udi ci al

decl ar at i ons of r easonabl e f i r ear muse i n such si t uat i ons may mi ss

t he mar k. I n t hi s sense, our deci si on does not r el y on hi ndsi ght

t o second guess the handl i ng of a di f f i cul t si t uat i on. Rat her , i t

si mpl y conf i r ms t hat i n t hi s i nst ance, t he reasonabl eness demanded

by t he Four t h Amendment i s no more t han the r easonabl eness t hat

l aw enf or cement of f i cer s r egul ar l y demand of t hemsel ves.

We end as we di d i n Ml odzi nski , not i ng t hat " [ o] ur deni al

of i mmuni t y on pl ai nt i f f s' ver si on of t he event s l eaves t hese

cl ai ms f or t r i al , wher e [ Duncan] may t r y to per suade t he j ur y that

[ he] di d not do what [ he i s] accused of doi ng. " Ml odzi nski , 648

F. 3d at 40.

VI .

For t he r easons st at ed above, we af f i r m t he deni al of

t he def endant s' mot i on f or ent r y of summary j udgment on t he basi s

of qual i f i ed i mmuni t y. Cost s ar e awar ded t o t he pl ai nt i f f s.

Stamps v. Town of Framingham, 1st Cir. (2016)

Documents

Transcript of Stamps v. Town of Framingham, 1st Cir. (2016)