CA11: Officers’ killing of plaintiff’s decedent was sufficiently reasonable under the circumstances for qualified immunity

Officers’ split-second decision that led to a motorist’s death was sufficiently reasonable under the circumstances that they were entitled to qualified immunity. McCullough v. Antolini, 559 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2009)*:

In short, the sheriff’s deputies used deadly force in a split-second situation where a suspect late at night refused to pull over, engaged in a high-speed chase, and then, after pulling over, repeatedly refused to show his hands or respond to officers, revved his engine, and then drove his truck toward the deputy standing nearby in a parking lot.

As in Pace, Robinson, and Long, McCullough used his vehicle in a dangerous and aggressive manner which provided the officers with probable cause to believe that McCullough, while driving his truck, posed a threat of serious physical harm or death to the officers, or other passersby, especially in light of the speed with which the incident unfolded. Specifically, McCullough’s initial attempts to evade police, his failure to heed police warning of the potential use of deadly force, his later attempt to drive a truck towards an officer on foot, and his still later apparent attempt to drive away from the officers toward the exit of the parking lot provided the officers with sufficient reason to believe the use of deadly force was necessary.

Thus, on the particular facts of this case, especially in light of the deference we afford the split-second police judgments in the field and our prior precedent in this difficult area, we are constrained to conclude that deputies Antolini and DeLeon had probable cause to believe that the suspect posed a direct threat of serious physical harm or death, gave an adequate warning under the circumstances, and had powerful reason to believe that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent escape. Simply put, the force used against McCullough was not excessive under the Fourth Amendment and the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Because we can discern no constitutional violation, we need not address whether the constitutional right at issue had been clearly established when the incident arose.

Defendant was the subject of an anonymous call to a drug hotline. Officers checked and saw that he was on probation, so they conducted a probation search of his house when his mother was there. The search was not harassing and was founded on fact. Hess v. State, 296 Ga. App. 300, 674 S.E.2d 362 (2009).*

Officers pulled up beside the defendants who were walking on the street and said “What’s up guys?” A baggie of crack fell between them. They were not seized by the inquiry. State v. Foster, 2009 Ohio 840, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 695 (9th Dist. February 25, 2009).*