CA9: It was objectively reasonable for officer to shoot driver he thought ran over another officer and was driving recklessly around them

The use of deadly force was objectively reasonable here as a matter of law under the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiff’s decedent was shot by an officer in an attempt to arrest after a PIT maneuver when one officer thought that another had been run over and decedent was still driving recklessly at them. The dissent believed there were still issues for trial. Wilkinson v. Torres, 09-35098 (9th Cir. July 6, 2010) (2-1):

Here, Torres did not violate a constitutional right [in shooting plaintiff’s decedent]. Even construing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, a reasonable officer in Torres’ position had probable cause to believe that Wilkinson posed an immediate threat to the safety of Key and himself. When he fired the shots, Torres was standing in a slippery yard with a minivan accelerating around him. The driver of the minivan had failed to yield to police sirens as well as to direct commands to put his hands up and to stop the vehicle. Cf. Brosseau, 543 U.S. at 200 (finding that “shoot[ing] a disturbed felon, set on avoiding capture through vehicular flight, when persons in the immediate area are at risk from that flight” was not a clearly established Fourth Amendment violation). The minivan was accelerating, its tires were spinning, mud was flying up, and a fellow officer was nearby either lying fallen on the ground or standing but disoriented. The situation had quickly turned from one involving a crashed vehicle to one in which the driver of a moving vehicle, ignoring police commands, attempted to accelerate within close quarters of two officers on foot. In this “tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving” situation, a reasonable officer had probable cause to believe that the threat to safety justified the use of deadly force.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.