holding that suspect who had taken control of officer’s patrol car, although he was in possession of a dangerous weapon, “was not threatening the lives of those around him” because officer was never in the suspect’s line of flight and had already been passed by the car when he shot the suspect
How later courts described this case
- holding that suspect who had taken control of officer’s patrol car, although he was in possession of a dangerous weapon, “was not threatening the lives of those around him” because officer was never in the suspect’s line of flight and had already been passed by the car when he shot the suspect
- holding that unlike Brosseau, where there is no suspicion of a firearm, where the crime did not involve infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, and where there is no imminent threat to others, a clearly established right was violated
- finding “a jury could conclude that [the defendant–officer] fired as he ran toward the driver side of [the plaintiff’s car] after the car passed him” and thus that the defendant–officer was not entitled to qualified immunity
- determining that a jury could find an officer outside the fleeing vehicle was never in its path and fired his weapon after the vehicle had passed and thus was not in immediate danger
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Williams v. City of Grosse Pointe Park, 496 F.3d 482 (2007)
Sigley and Cupp are inapplicable to the facts of this case because the events depicted on the video demonstrate that Miller reasonably believed that Williams posed a threat of serious harm and acted in accordance with that belief.
The opinion
MERRITT, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the Court’s opinion except for Section II.A on jurisdiction. The case is primarily a factual dispute, and the jury should apply the “clearly established law” to the facts developed at trial before we review the case.