finding no excessive force violation when an officer fired two shots at a fleeing suspect’s vehicle, where the officer “warned [the suspect] not to start the car or he would shoot,” and where the suspect’s vehicle then “began advancing toward” the officer
How later courts described this case
- finding no excessive force violation when an officer fired two shots at a fleeing suspect’s vehicle, where the officer “warned [the suspect] not to start the car or he would shoot,” and where the suspect’s vehicle then “began advancing toward” the officer
- concluding the officer reasonably perceived a threat of imminent harm when that officer was standing directly in the path of an oncoming vehicle and shot the driver
- declining to address issue, and instead holding that qualified immunity shielded officer who fired his weapon at a car full of people because the law was unclearly established as to whether a passenger could be seized
- recognizing that “a hint as to what the law may be cannot substitute for clearly established law”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MATHESON, J.,
concurring
I join the panel opinion regarding Mr. Carabajal’s excessive force claims and Plaintiffs’ negligent hiring claim. As to V.M.C.’s unreasonable seizure claim, I concur in the result on the following ground: Whether or not Y.M.C. was seized, see Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 261 , 127 S.Ct. 2400 , 168 L.Ed.2d 132 (2007) (recognizing that both passengers and drivers are seized when police use force to stop a car), it follows from our conclusion that Officer Thornton acted reasonably that any seizure of V.M.C. was reasonable.