## Facts

- Near midnight on July 18, 2004, a West Memphis, Arkansas officer stopped Donald Rickard for an inoperable headlight and noticed vehicle damage.
- When asked to step out, Rickard fled, initiating a police chase that crossed into Memphis, Tennessee.
- The chase lasted over five minutes, exceeded 100 mph, and involved passing more than two dozen motorists in a highly dangerous manner.
- In a parking lot, Rickard spun out and his car came to rest with its front bumper against a police vehicle; he continued pressing the accelerator.
- An officer fired three shots into Rickard’s vehicle; Rickard then drove away, nearly striking an officer, and officers fired twelve additional shots as he fled.
- Rickard and his passenger, Kelley Allen, died after the vehicle crashed, from a combination of gunshot wounds and crash-related injuries.
- Rickard’s minor daughter sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments; the district court denied summary judgment, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the court of appeals had interlocutory jurisdiction to review the denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity.
2. Whether the officers violated the Fourth Amendment by using deadly force to end Rickard’s flight.
3. If a constitutional violation occurred, whether the officers were nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because the unlawfulness was not clearly established in 2004.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding the officers were entitled to summary judgment.
- The court of appeals properly exercised interlocutory jurisdiction because the appeal presented legal questions about qualified immunity, not merely disputes about evidentiary sufficiency.
- The officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment because, given Rickard’s ongoing, dangerous attempt to flee, deadly force was objectively reasonable to end a grave public-safety risk.
- Even assuming a Fourth Amendment violation, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because existing precedent did not clearly establish the unconstitutionality of their conduct in these circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- Denials of qualified immunity at summary judgment are immediately appealable when the appeal turns on legal questions (e.g., whether assumed facts show a violation of clearly established law), rather than only evidence sufficiency.
- Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims are governed by objective reasonableness, assessed in light of the threat posed and the totality of the circumstances.
- When a fleeing suspect’s driving poses a serious risk of physical harm to officers or the public, officers may use deadly force to terminate that threat.
- If officers are justified in firing to end a severe threat to public safety, they need not stop shooting until the threat has ended; the number of shots is evaluated in context, including timing and whether the suspect remains an active danger.
- Qualified immunity applies unless prior law would have made it clear to a reasonable officer that the specific conduct was unlawful in the situation confronted.

## Conclusion

The Court held that officers acted reasonably in using gunfire to end a high-speed chase that posed a grave danger to the public and that, in any event, they were protected by qualified immunity because the unlawfulness of their actions was not clearly established at the time.


Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014)