## Facts

- Adolph Bradley, a 72-year-old Brooklyn, Illinois police officer with decades of law-enforcement experience, patrolled overnight with another officer in an unmarked car equipped with internal emergency lights.
- Around 5:30 a.m., Bradley and his partner observed Roosevelt Marshall, age 60, roll through a stop sign and attempted a traffic stop using a red emergency light.
- Marshall did not immediately pull over and continued driving at low speed.
- During the pursuit, Bradley fired a first “warning” shot over Marshall’s vehicle and then fired a second shot toward the driver.
- The second bullet entered the vehicle and lodged in a steel plate in the driver’s seat directly behind Marshall’s back; Marshall felt the impact and then stopped.
- Bradley approached with his gun drawn, ordered Marshall out, recognized him as a childhood friend, and released him without issuing a citation.
- Marshall later contacted federal authorities, leading to an investigation and an indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 242 for willfully depriving Marshall of the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable (excessive) force under color of law.
- A jury convicted Bradley; the district court imposed probation, community service, and restitution after granting a downward departure as “aberrant behavior.”
- Bradley appealed the conviction; the government cross-appealed the downward departure.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Bradley acted “willfully,” as required for criminal liability under 18 U.S.C. § 242.
2. Whether firing into the vehicle during a low-speed pursuit for a minor traffic infraction constituted an objectively unreasonable use of force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
3. Whether the district court erred in granting a downward departure without making adequate factual findings to justify it.

## Decision

- The conviction was affirmed.
- The court held the evidence permitted a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Bradley willfully violated Marshall’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force under color of law.
- The sentence was vacated.
- The case was remanded for resentencing because the district court did not make sufficient factual findings supporting the downward departure.

## Legal Principles

- To convict under 18 U.S.C. § 242, the government must prove a deprivation of a constitutional right under color of law and that the defendant acted “willfully,” requiring more than negligence.
- Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims turn on objective reasonableness in light of the facts and circumstances confronting the officer; deadly or near-deadly force against a minimally threatening suspect may be unreasonable.
- On sufficiency review, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and sustains the conviction if a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A sentencing court may not grant a downward departure without articulating specific factual findings that justify departure under the applicable standards.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld Bradley’s § 242 conviction for willfully using excessive force by shooting into a motorist’s vehicle during a low-speed pursuit over a minor infraction, but vacated the probationary sentence and remanded because the sentencing court failed to make adequate factual findings supporting a downward departure.


United States v. Bradley, 196 F.3d 762 (7th Cir. 1999)