Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver

California's premier full-service law firm with an emphasis on the representation of peace officers in disciplinary, criminal, labor, workers' compensation, personal injury and other civil matters.

  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    • Labor Representation
    • Civil Litigation
    • Personal Injury
      • Example of Case Results
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • Maritime Law
    • Estate Planning
    • DOE Security Clearance Hearings
    • Peace Officers
    • Firefighters
    • EMS Agency Investigations
    • Criminal Defense
    • CalPERS Appeals
  • Our Team
  • Classes
  • Media
    • Bulletins
    • RLS in the News
  • Resources
    • Links
    • Resources
    • Newsletters
  • Clients
  • Career Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer

Supreme Court Reaffirms Graham v. Connor – Arkansas Officers’ Use Of Deadly Force Cleared

June 4, 2014 by Hien Nguyen

By Zachery Lopes, 6/4/14

In a ruling which strongly affirms Graham v. Connor’s guidance on analyzing use of force under the Fourth Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously found that Arkansas police officers did not use excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment when they shot and killed a fleeing motorist, ending a high-speed car chase which risked the lives of both the officers and numerous innocent bystanders.

The Court’s May 27, 2014, ruling in Plumhoff, et al., v. Rickard, et al. (2015) 572 U.S. ___, further embeds the Graham v. Connor mandate: any analysis of force under the Fourth Amendment must be “viewed from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.”

In July of 2004, driver Donald Rickard was stopped by a West Memphis, Arkansas Police Officer due to Rickard’s car having only one operating headlight. After Rickard refused to give up his driver’s license when asked, and the officer noticing Rickard’s nervous appearance and damage to the car consistent with vehicle theft, the officer ordered Rickard to step out of the vehicle. Rather than comply, Rickard sped away.

The ensuing pursuit, ultimately involving six police cruisers, lasted some five minutes, exceeded speeds of 100 mph, and came within close proximity to other motorists on the road, including “swerving through traffic at high speeds.” It was estimated that the pursuit blew by more than two dozen vehicles. Eventually, Rickard lost control of his vehicle, “spun out” into a parking lot, and collided with one of the pursuing officer’s vehicles. Now cornered, Rickard put his car into reverse in an attempt to escape, but collided with another officer’s vehicle. At that point, two officers got out of their cars and approached Rickard’s car, with one of the officers drawing his pistol and ordering Rickard to stop and get out while knocking on his passenger window. Once again, instead of complying, Rickard slammed on the accelerator in an apparent attempt to push through the sitting police cruiser blocking his car’s escape. At this point, one of the officers fired three shots into Rickard’s car. Rickard then reversed in “a 180 degree arc,” narrowly avoiding a diving officer, and managed to maneuver onto a side street and began to speed away. Other officers on scene then fired twelve shots into the car. Rickard crashed shortly thereafter, and both he and his passenger died.

Rickard’s daughter filed a federal lawsuit against the shooting officers, among other defendants, alleging “excessive force” in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The daughter made two central arguments considered by the Court: first, the officers used excessive force by using deadly force to terminate the pursuit, and second, the officers used excessive force by firing fifteen shots in total to end the pursuit.

The District Court favored the daughter’s arguments, ruling that the defendant officers’ conduct violated the Fourth Amendment, and also that they were not entitled to “qualified immunity,” as their conduct violated “clearly established” Fourth Amendment law. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal agreed on both points.

The Supreme Court reversed, rejecting both of the daughter’s contentions and the lower courts’ rulings. Specifically, the Court made two rulings: first, none of the officers’ conduct violated the Fourth Amendment, and second, even if it did, they were entitled to “qualified immunity.” The Court also engaged in an interesting discussion about Rickard’s passenger’s right to be free from unreasonable force under the Fourth Amendment.

Strongly affirming Graham v. Connor’s familiar Fourth Amendment analysis, the Court reiterated the rule that allegations of unreasonable force must be analyzed “from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight…We thus allow for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments – in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving – about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” Using this framework, the Court referred to the prior case of Scott v. Harris (2007) 550 U.S. 372, for support of its position that the officers’ use of deadly force here was reasonable. In Scott, the Court noted that where a suspect leads police on a car chase which poses “an actual and imminent threat” to bystanders, “a police officer’s attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death.”

In this case, the Court saw “no basis for reaching a different conclusion.” It noted that “Rickard’s outrageously reckless driving posed a grave public safety risk,” as it “exceeded 100 mph,” “lasted over five minutes,” and “passed more than two dozen other vehicles.” Further, the Court found that the chase was not “over” when Rickard was “cornered” in the parking lot, as he was still attempting to speed away, nearly hitting an officer: “[u]nder the circumstances at the moment when the shots were fired, all that a reasonable police officer could have concluded was that Rickard was intent on resuming his flight and that, if he was allowed to do so, he would once again pose a deadly threat for others on the road.” Thus, “it [was] beyond serious dispute that Rickard’s flight posed a grave public safety risk, and here, as in Scott, the police acted reasonably in using deadly force to end that risk.”

As for the fifteen shots fired, “it stands to reason that, if police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended.” This is exactly what occurred, as “during the 10-second span when all the shots were fired, Rickard never abandoned his attempt to flee.” Importantly, the Court did note that had the officers “initiated a second round of shots after an initial round had clearly incapacitated Rickard and had ended any threat of continued flight, or if Rickard had clearly given himself up,” it may have been a different result.

Finally, the Court found that the passenger’s presence in the car did not alter the analysis before it, because the passenger’s presence in the car “cannot enhance Rickard’s Fourth Amendment rights….it would be perverse if his disregard for [the passenger’s] safety worked to his benefit.” That is, the passenger’s presence did not alter the analysis of any possible violation of Rickard’s Fourth Amendment rights. This is because “Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights which…may not be vicariously asserted.” However, “if a suit were brought on behalf of [the passenger],” under the Fourth Amendment or state tort law, the analysis would focus on the officer’s actions in relation to his right to be free from unreasonable force. Unfortunately, the Court did not elaborate much further on this point. The Court here may be flagging an undeveloped area of Fourth Amendment law, and one to watch for in future cases.

However, as it stands now, such an ambiguous question about a fleeing passenger’s rights should still be viewed by the Courts “from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.”

 

Disclaimer: Case law and analysis can change over time. The information in this article is accurate as of the date the article was written and should not constitute legal advice. Always consult with an attorney.

Filed Under: Bulletins Tagged With: zachery-a-lopes

Consultation Form

Offices across California to serve you.
Contact us now to schedule a consultation.
Contact form not loading? Click here!
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC publishes this website as a service to our clients and other friends for informational purposes only. It is not intended to be used as a substitute for specific legal advice or opinions, and the transmission of information through this website is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between sender and receiver. Internet subscribers and online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

© 2023 Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC. All Rights Reserved. | Disclaimer

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
Do not sell my personal information.
Cookie settingsACCEPTREJECT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT
  • Contact Us

  • News Alerts

Official logo for Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver Logo
  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    ▼
    • Labor Representation
    • Civil Litigation
    • Personal Injury
      ▼
      • Example of Case Results
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • Maritime Law
    • Estate Planning
    • DOE Security Clearance Hearings
    • Peace Officers
    • Firefighters
    • EMS Agency Investigations
    • Criminal Defense
    • CalPERS Appeals
  • Our Team
  • Classes
  • Media
    ▼
    • Bulletins
    • RLS in the News
  • Resources
    ▼
    • Links
    • Resources
    • Newsletters
  • Clients
  • Career Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
Hotline phone numbers. Northern California: 925-609-1699. Southern California: 310-393-1486.