Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 2004

Brosseau v. Haugen

543 U.S. 194 | 125 S. Ct. 596 | 160 L. Ed. 2d 583 | 2004 U.S. LEXIS 8275

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that broad excessive-force principles do not defeat qualified immunity unless preexisting law clearly warned an officer that deadly force was unlawful in the specific, fact-bound situation she faced.

Background

Officer Rochelle Brosseau responded to a report of a fight involving Kenneth Haugen, who was the subject of a felony no-bail arrest warrant. After Haugen fled and officers searched for him, he ran to his Jeep Cherokee, ignored Brosseau's orders to leave the vehicle, and started it. Brosseau believed he might be retrieving a weapon and, after unsuccessfully trying to stop him by breaking the window, grabbing the keys, and striking him with her handgun, fired one shot through the rear driver's-side window. The shot struck Haugen in the back as he drove away. Brosseau said she feared for officers on foot, persons in nearby occupied vehicles, and other citizens who might be endangered by Haugen's flight.

Haugen survived, later pleaded guilty to felony eluding, and brought a § 1983 action alleging excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. The District Court granted Brosseau summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds. The Ninth Circuit reversed under Saucier v. Katz, holding both that Brosseau had used excessive force and that the right was clearly established. The Supreme Court granted review only on the qualified-immunity question, summarily reversed, and remanded.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether Officer Brosseau was entitled to qualified immunity for shooting Haugen as he attempted to flee in his vehicle.

Holding

Yes. Even assuming the shooting violated the Fourth Amendment, the law did not clearly establish that Brosseau's conduct was unconstitutional in the particular circumstances she confronted.

Reasoning

Qualified immunity protects an officer who reasonably misapprehends the law governing a rapidly developing situation, even if her conduct ultimately proves constitutionally deficient. The controlling question is whether existing law gave the officer fair notice that her particular conduct was unlawful, not whether broad constitutional principles prohibited excessive force in the abstract.

Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor supplied the general Fourth Amendment framework. Garner permits deadly force when an officer has probable cause to believe a fleeing suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or others, while Graham requires objective reasonableness. But those general standards operate at a high level of generality and did not, by themselves, clearly resolve this fact-specific vehicle-flight situation.

This was not an obvious case in which the general constitutional rule alone made the answer clear. Brosseau confronted a wanted felon determined to escape by vehicle while officers, occupied vehicles, and potentially other citizens were nearby. The relevant inquiry therefore required more particularized precedent addressing whether deadly force was permissible in a situation involving the danger posed by vehicular flight.

The available lower-court cases did not clearly establish unlawfulness. Cole v. Bone and Smith v. Freland upheld shootings of fleeing drivers who endangered others, while Estate of Starks v. Enyart found a factual basis for an excessive-force claim where the asserted danger was less grave. None squarely governed Brosseau's circumstances, and together they showed that the constitutional line depended closely on the facts.

Because the precedents placed Brosseau's conduct within the hazy border between acceptable and excessive force, a reasonable officer lacked the required clear notice that shooting Haugen violated the Fourth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit therefore erred by treating the broad tests in Garner and Graham as sufficient, without identifying more factually particularized authority.

Issue #2

Whether the Court should decide whether Brosseau's shooting itself violated Haugen's Fourth Amendment right against excessive force.

Holding

The Court expressly declined to decide that question.

Reasoning

Although the Ninth Circuit held that the shooting violated the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court granted review only on the second Saucier question: whether the asserted right was clearly established. The Court held that Brosseau was entitled to qualified immunity regardless of how the underlying constitutional question would be resolved.

The Court therefore did not alter the governing substantive rule from Garner and Graham. It left unresolved whether, viewing the evidence in Haugen's favor, Brosseau had probable cause to believe that Haugen's attempted vehicular escape posed a sufficiently serious and immediate danger to justify deadly force.

Concurrences

Justice Breyer

Reasoning

Justice Breyer joined the Court's qualified-immunity analysis but questioned Saucier's required sequence, under which lower courts must first decide whether a constitutional violation occurred and only then decide qualified immunity. In his view, that rigid order can force courts to resolve difficult constitutional questions even when qualified immunity provides an easier and sufficient ground for disposing of the case.

He stressed the practical costs of the mandatory sequence. On crowded dockets, it can waste judicial resources and can produce constitutional rulings that are effectively insulated from meaningful appellate review. He therefore urged the Court to reconsider Saucier's order of battle in an appropriate future case. Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg joined this concurrence.

Dissents

Justice Stevens

Reasoning

Justice Stevens believed the constitutional question was straightforward: shooting Haugen to prevent his escape was objectively unreasonable under Garner. Haugen was unarmed, had not threatened Brosseau or anyone else with a weapon, was not known to have committed a violent crime, and had not shown an intent to harm others. In Stevens's view, the speculative possibility that Haugen might cause an accidental collision while fleeing did not justify an attempt to kill him.

Stevens rejected the majority's insistence on closely analogous case law. Garner had clearly established for nearly two decades that deadly force may not be used against a fleeing suspect unless the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a serious physical threat. General legal rules, he explained, can provide constitutionally adequate fair warning; a prior case need not have found the exact same conduct unlawful.

The cases invoked by the majority did not create genuine legal uncertainty, according to Stevens. Cole and Smith involved suspects who had already engaged in extreme, high-speed, and demonstrably dangerous driving, including forcing vehicles off the road or attempting to ram police cars. Haugen, by contrast, was in a vehicle that was stationary or just beginning to move and had not previously driven dangerously.

Still, Stevens did not conclude that Brosseau necessarily lacked qualified immunity as a matter of law. Whether a reasonable officer could have believed Haugen's flight created a sufficiently foreseeable threat of serious harm depended on disputed and fact-sensitive circumstances. Reasonable jurors could differ on that question, so it should have been left to a jury rather than resolved on summary judgment.

Stevens also objected to the Court's use of summary reversal without full briefing and oral argument. Given the factual complexity and the Ninth Circuit's divided treatment of the case, he concluded that the lower court's decision was not so clearly erroneous as to warrant that extraordinary procedure.